Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×
Microsoft

MS Office for Linux 619

webslacker was the first to write in a ZD-Net article that claims that Microsoft might be porting Office to Linux. This is not as outlandish as it might at first appear since a Java port of Office was underway at one point. On the one-hand the availability of Office might increase the use of Linux in businesses -- like its availability on Macs did for Macs. On the other hand, it might reduce long-term quality if smaller vendors are squeezed out of the market. What do you think?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

MS Office for Linux

Comments Filter:
  • That's exactly what I was thinking...
  • I think Microsoft is trying to bet on two horses here.

    One one hand if Linux ends up being the number 1 OS they will loose on windows, but benefit from selling programs to it.

    On the other hand if they do port their applications to linux, people will have even less reasons to by windows.

    All in all. Microsoft is known for vaporware. I will believe this when I see it in the stores.
  • Amiga? The only product Microsoft ever released for the Amiga was Amiga Basic, and I doubt that had much to do with the death of the Amiga. I never heard of them announcing any products for it, either, and even if they did, that was not what killed it.
    Commodore killed the Amiga, noone else gets to take any of the credit for that.
  • $ dict gay

    From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) [webster]:

    Gay \Gay\, a. [Compar. {Gayer}; superl. {Gayest}.] [F. gai, perhaps fr. OHG. g?hi swift, rapid, G. g["a]h, j["a]h, steep, hasty; or cf. OHG. w?hi beatiful, good. Cf. {Jay}.]
    1. Excited with merriment; manifesting sportiveness or delight; inspiring delight; livery; merry.

    Belinda smiled, and all the world was gay. --Pope.

    Gay hope is theirs by fancy fed. --Gray.

    2. Brilliant in colors; splendid; fine; richly dressed.

    Why is my neighbor's wife so gay? --Chaucer.

    A bevy of fair women, richly gay In gems and wanton dress! --Milton.

    3. Loose; dissipated; lewd. [Colloq.]

    Syn: Merry; gleeful; blithe; airy; lively; sprightly, sportive; light-hearted; frolicsome; jolly; jovial; joyous; joyful; glad; showy; splendid; vivacious.

    I've never understood why english-speakers call homosexuals gay. Did they think that homosexuals are happier than heterosexuals or something?
  • Why would the dependency on Gtk need work? Should they port it to Athena, or what?
  • *shudder* At least you didn't suggest porting it to Open Look. Of course, now somebody will do just that.
  • > Then the only problems will be the bloat in
    > Office.

    Actually, I think the real problem is the bloat in the MS libraries, and Visual F-. Hrm... almost all Windows programs are bloated. Almost all Windows programs are written in Visual Basic and Visual C. I wonder if there's a connection?

    Maybe if they replaced their libraries, Office would install in under 150 meg...

    Naaah.
  • This is not quite true.

    Unix apps usually install under a path specified when you run the configuration script (or edit the Makefile in some cases). If you specify no path, usually they assume /usr/local. The installation puts files under appropriate subdirectories in the hierarchy you specify, that is, if INSTALL is the install directory, it puts binaries under INSTALL/bin, libraries under INSTALL/lib, and so on.

    This means a user can install an app anywhere he has write permission. For example, I install apps all the time in my home directory on machines I don't have root access on.

    One might conceivably allow regular users to install apps in system directories by making those directories owned by a group, say the "install" group, giving that group write access to the directory, and adding the users to the group. I don't know if doing such a thing would be a good idea, though.

    ---

  • by Micah ( 278 )
    Just after I bought Corel stock assuming they'd clean up after Linux conquers the desktop...
  • I don't know what's wrong with your system, but have you thought about hardware? StarOffice 5 is stable for me on FreeBSD 4.0-CURRENT, so I don't know what you're having a problem with here. In addition, I've been using StarOffice for many months on my K6 (now K6-2 300) and the speed is quite acceptable. It's not as fast as something highly optimized for Unix, but didn't you notice they use a cross-platform toolkit to mediate between SO and the OS? Kinda like what Mozilla is doing with NSPR...
  • Lets step back to look at this. With all the publicity GNU/Linux is getting, lots of people are trying GNU/Linux for the first time. Most of these people don't have a UNIX or hacker mentality, and are going to think that GNU/Linux sucks. Yes ease of use issues are being solved, but let's face it - we're not there yet. Having MS Office would help a lot to make the transition easier for these people.

    On the other hand, other office like projects might suffer if something like office takes interest away from them. For those of use are GNU heads, we know our way is the better way. Open source is a fundamentally superior way to develop software. Proprietary software has two things going for it right now: It has been working on easy to use applications for the masses longer, and it is the status quo. Free software is catching up, and the status quo is changing.

    Office for GNU/Linux might hurt us in the short term, but as pointy haired bosses get used to the GNU Order they're going to start questioning why they can't get the fixes and enhancements they want to their proprietary apps. Before long they'll be dumping proprietary software and contributing to free software along with the hobbyists.

    I think for now Office for GNU/Linux is good because I'm worried that when a large enough chunk of users have a bad experience with GNU/Linux it will loose its good name in the media, and then it will be much more difficult to gain acceptance. Office would help to stop that from happening. Since I know free software can't loose in the long run, I don't mind some short term set-backs.

  • I'd rather have Applix anyway. It's cheaper and works just as well for what I want it to do. I'm sure StarOffice would also be just as good. I would rather pay the $70-90 price tag for either of these than the huge price tag for office any day.
  • This makes complete since to me. M$ isnt a stupid company if linux continues to grow (which it will). They will have to loose there bull headed resistance to it and build apps for linux or fall. They have never had a problem building inferior products for the MAC or anyother OS. The problem will be once they are in they will "LEVERAGE" there products into each other. For there own advantage through small inconsistencies. Poisoning the water is what M$ is good at not geting in.
  • Star Office is available on windows, you knob. As well as OS/2 and Mac. And I believe Applix is available on windows too.
  • No kidding- if they do this, they will show some real tactical genius at picking libs to fragment Linux. Perhaps they will pick FSF libs- and _freeze_ the things- you can't upgrade the FSF libs without breaking MSOffice- it could _check_ to see if it should crash if newer libs are present! They _can_ halt development of important shared libraries that way.
    They can also put in timing loops that gradually make everything slower and slower- at one point somebody analyzed the really slow Mac office and found, not simply P-code, but _busywaits_ in the assembly language. Not fooling- they are totally willing to sabotage their own software that disgustingly in the name of future control of the operating system. Because of that, Mac Office has sometimes been _greatly_ inferior in practice to WinOffice, slow, unresponsive, when in background drags performance of all apps down... people have made benchmarks for machines based on sabotaged applications like this, and it can happen again. They are long range planners in some things- making the best Linux office suite might _not_ be their long range strategic goal. Just a warning...
  • Bingo! This is the big threat. It's absolutely trivial to require special libs. What do you think they do on Macintoshes, for crying out loud? It's install extensions like mad, all over the place. Stuff that's always running. I saw a MacOS 7.1 installation go from TEN! megs of ram to FOUR _just_ by removing all the MS extensions. There was more MS code in RAM than there was Apple code... _this_ is what you can look forward to by trying to integrate Microsoft tech into your Linux. Take it from the battle-scarred and heavily marginalised Mac users, okay? You have no idea how vulnerable you really are. Don't even con yourself that you can play their game and win it. They'll 'win' you. Just say no- find other ways to do things.
    Chris, who has all-non-MS ways of doing all sorts of things on Macs _and_ linuxPPC...
  • Er... I'm told that if you place the insertion point within a block of text of one size or style in Word, and begin deleting text, and delete past where the style block begins, due to the deletion of the internal marker all the text _after_ your insertion point abruptly changes style. So if you try to delete across a style block, Word flips out and causes big chunks of text following the insertion point to be suddenly formatted differently. I'm also given to understand that this is a _very_ old bug, except that it's still not fixed because this uncontrolled spasm of the formatting is either considered a feature, or people are used to learning that it does that by now.
    How is this different from 'when you try to edit text it will not work or even make the problem worse'? o_O
  • Since when? No chance. It'll be MS certified closed kernel mods, take it or leave it. Oh, and you have to reinstall the service packs after you do anything to the kernel, or it won't work.
    Who's going to _make_ them release source against their will? That's not what open source is about anyhow. Doing that is as bad as the Texas guy who's being sued over the contents of his thoughts (as seen recently on Slashdot). "Not only must you turn over your idea to the company, it also has to be released to the public as source!" no no no...
  • Sorry man: no deal. I'm still doing GPL, gonna continue doing GPL, hopefully with ever more useful actual software and handy code bits to share, and the code is available to anyone but those who won't let me (and everyone) into their process.
    That's more important than regulating market share. In fact that helps regulate market share all by itself- in theory the prize will simply go to whoever has a basic competence and will put in the most work on a thing. This is not bad- hell, if I write, say, a parser to translate the RGB values for MacOS custom appearance colors into hex codes as used in HTML tags (which I have done and it's open source, probably easy to translate into whatever language you like) and a bunch of merry little hamsters in wheels at Microsoft run about adding ways to get the color of everything you could imagine and translate it into everything from HTML to LAB to CMYK, _and_ _publish_, what's wrong with that picture? If they write bad code, fix it. If one of their variations is useful, use it. It really doesn't matter at that stage...
    YO! Microsoft programmers down there in the woodwork! Start hacking on GPLed projects and share your code as the license absolutely requires! Your masters may be corrupt evil buggers that should be in jail, but _you_ have equal rights with all programmers- there should be no stigma based just on where a programmer works, only on how he or she handles it! JOIN us >:)
    Hee. It's fun to say 'us' on slashdot. You instantly get flamed from 27 different directions. I don't care. Amnesty, respect for Microsoft programmers! Forget your boss and JOIN us. Pitch in. It matters, and you're the crazed amphetamine-laden no-vacation beavers of the software world, and you know it, too. Stop giving all that energy to Bill, and use that high overstressed voltage for a good cause for a change. JOIN US. *waves shiny pocket watch* youuu are getting sleeepyyyy... you are going to write GPLed open source... join us...
    *hehehehehe*
    Yeah! Come on, join us!
  • As a tech who's made MacOS 7 _system_ software go from ten megs to _four_ megs just by removing MS extensions, I have to beg to differ. OK, more like shriek "AAAAAAA! ARE YOU CRAZY???"
    That is the _first_ thing they will require. Expect stuff like new swap mechanisms for IE, or special memory allocating mechanisms in parallel with the normal ones- substitute filesystem handling routines is _very_ likely because MS like to squeeze a bit of extra speed any way they can, no matter how dangerously, and are happy to ignore any API if they can sleaze some extra caching or a quicker write access.
    The _first_ thing they will require is kernel modules. Come on man, look at the record! MacOS extensions for Office? Substitute _menu_ drawing code, substitute dialog boxes, substitute _TextEdit_ for crying out loud? Look at the Frontpage extensions- replacing the Apache binary for crying out loud?
    Know what you're dealing with- they _will_ replace anything they can think of. If they didn't, their stuff would be even _slower_ (though it would crash less if they followed the rules). This isn't a hypothetical- they've already done this to the Mac platform. Now, who here says Macs crash like crazy? OK, now who has used a Mac which did _not_ have _any_ Microsoft extensions or code in it? HMMMMM.
    Final happy note- there have been Microsoft apps which _hacked_ the _system_ file permanently when installed. Currently to my knowledge they do not- but the latest IE ignores the normal tacky-but-controllable Mac style of memory allocation and allocates memory like _mad_ in the _system_ _heap_, not in the app's heap at all. Wheee, _nice_ going guys, let's just dump buggy swatches of memory right in the system heap so if anything goes wrong it's jammed right into the guts of MacOS. Guard pages? What guard pages? *rrrrrr*
    Yes, it's a lame memory model in the first place, but abusing it that way is tantamount to sabotage and _totally_ makes it impossible to control IE's resources when run. And IE immediately starts slamming pages and data into the system heap, too- more caching, pity it's not being done in an _appropriate_ way... gaaaaah! *fume*
    Er.
    Let me start over. *ahem*
    'No, Microsoft probably _will_ force extensive kernel patches to be used even though this could seriously risk stability and reliability. :)'
    uh, how's that? Get the feeling that I'm not just guessing? o_O
  • How about their committment to the Mac, then?
    Big hype for Mac Office- meanwhile, they KILL the mac versions of everything ELSE! The encyclopedia? *poof* Games? *buahaha* Corporate messaging? *foosh*
    You gotta be both a lawyer at heart, and _seriously_ cynical to the point of evil, to guess what they will do, and then they'll do it. I'd guessed they'd hype Mac Office and kill everything else quietly- sure enough, they have, and their Mac line is a lot smaller than it was, and not getting any bigger. Regarding Linux- dunno if they'll release a distribution, but they will eventually release _something_ that will require kernel mods, and that's the thin end of the wedge. If they're being very nice they will _tell_ you their installer is hacking your kernel. They have not always been very nice. Choke on _that_ one, Janet Reno. They have the morals of criminals- never assume you're dealing with a normal business. Look for the knife in the back, even if you're just a _user_. :P
  • Posted by Hidden Syntax:

    Look at it this way. Microsoft won't be able to use any "built" in functions of their os and make sure that others can't use them. This way its a level playing field. Corel vs. Microsoft. Umm, If MS comes out with a port I will d/led and compare. It will be very interesting to see which is better. The developer who develops for Linux to stay afloat in the business or the developer who develops to expand a "monopoly"?

    Hidden Syntax
  • Posted by AnnoyingMouseCoward:

    I mean after all, his Billness has been making hints about how M$ has got a prototype 64-bit "New and Improved" OS currently in the pipeline for the last 18 months or so.

    My daytime job is at a company that uses Windows and it's really great to see the way people in management go into a state of agitation when I say to them "...ther's no point in us commiting to develop 32-bit Windows programs, Bill Gates has already made it perfectly clear that 32-bit Windows will be dead in 3-5 years...".

    Since I started doing this, managements interest in Windows has dramatically decreased ( we don't need it, we make 90%+ of our money out of hardware anyway... ).

    That's the thing about FUD and Vaporware - it's a two edged sword that can cut you just as badly as your competitors. If M$ is dum enough to try this, their just going to get burned.
  • Posted by Phantom of the Operating Syste:

    Instructions:
    To Install, log in as root,
    Office will ask you for your root password

    It is recommended that you run this application
    as root.

    -phantom
  • Posted by Wonch:

    For me, Microsoft sucks... But by the way, it can
    be a pleasure to see how bad is their crap on Linux! Windows hacks wouldn't work this time, boys!


    Warning: No Satire...;)
  • Posted by bSMfh (bastard ScoutMaster fro:

    Yup. You got it right.

    It sounds good.....
    but it's basically
    FUD
    FUD
    FUD


  • Posted by noWan kenobi:

    that's probably what he thinks. But let us see... he is porting office to linux because he needs money. let's face it. WINDOWS will not last long.
  • For me, Microsoft sucks... But by the way, it can
    be a pleasure to see how bad is their crap on Linux! Windows hacks wouldn't work this time, boys!


    I can predict right now what's goign to happen.

    Microsoft Ports Office to linux.

    It runs like shit. Microsoft says "Well, if you were using windows, you wouldn't have this problem. After all, it's obviously the Operating System, as Office runs fine under Windows". Or they'll play the "Linux fragmentation" game or whatnot.

    Either that, or I could easily see them just starting a port just for the benefit of their current problems with the US government, and scrapping it as soon as the case is over.

    Microsoft is not known for doing things "for the betterment" of anyone other than themselves. Currently, the desktop, or office environment, isn't threatened by Linux, the network market is. Why in the hell would they bother? You would think they would slam things like Apache and Sendmail, trying to find replacements for those.

    -Erik- (the ever-pessimistic)
  • This is not necessarily a bad thing. There is no way that Microsoft office could compete on Linux with free software equivalents that have 80% of the functionality and 0% of the cost.

    For free applications to be used over commercial apps they need 150% of the functionality. Cost is not an issue, Microsoft has made a business out of having their software pirated, and benefitted very much so in the long run.

    Even if they NEVER made a damn DIME on an Office port for linux, that insures that they can push that market in their direction on multiple platforms, which means laying the final blow to Wordperfect.

    -Erik-
  • Right. Accidently. The Unix-Haters handbook has this right - xauth et la is a pain; no one is ever going to accidently discover X is network transparent.

    Uh.

    1) Telnet to shell
    2) set DISPLAY
    3) run xterm
    4) type xauth +(ip of shell)
    5) run program from shell

    is that hard?

    -Erik-
  • Or do you just assume that Rob's little place is so fucking gay that no one can keep away? I'm sure that an intelligent reply on ZDNet would be worth a couple of thousand replies on this site. Then again if one think about the usual quality of comments on this site - perhaps it is far better that all the elite d00dez stay away.

    First off, I couldn't reply to your post on ZDNet. The article system there is very .. poor. I would have to write a post there, quote yours, and never have any referencing in the visual output whatsoever that it is a reply to your topic.

    Second, if you were a regular visitor here, you would know that ZDNet puts some half-assed rumor like this up at least once a week, to stir guys like you and me up to go to their site to generate ad revenue. ZDNet has enough money, and Rob Malda, IMO, doesn't. I'd rather fund his back pocket to know that I have a place where I can talk freely, which brings me to the third point.

    Censorship. Read the other replies, i'm not going to restate the obvious.

    -Erik-

  • Office is M$'s only product that's worth a tinker's damn but I don't care whether they port it or not.
  • by jabbo ( 860 )
    >You've got everything you need with emacs and tex.

    Yeah, most people do. But using LyX or AucTex is just so amazingly difficult -- it's much quicker and better to learn Word's templates.

    Not.

    Oh, and people actually develop cool add-ons for Emacs. Things like agents which perform fuzzy searches in the background for things that might be related, write code for you, etc. etc... the sort of things that Visual WindowBuilder++ Pro users pay through the nose for.

    And of course it is just TRAGICALLY hard to run MSWordview to turn Word documents into HTML.

    Basically, you're either a troll or an idiot.


  • Can you imagine that? 200 posts/minute. The combined force of MS and KDE in the same article would be enough to achieve critical mass -- there'd be a crator where Rob's sever used to be...

    Anyway, it will never happen so long as Windows has any kind of market share at all. Office is the second part of Mixrosoft's one-two punch, and they're not about to compromise that by porting to a competing OS Like Linux.

    TedC

  • AbiWord is really nice because it does not use the insecure and bloated .doc format.
    No, it uses its own XML file format, but as of yesterday's tarball (0.5.1) it does import some Word 97 (Word version 8) files.
    There is no library for printing on newer inkjet printers and non-postscript, e.g. Epson Stylus Color 600
    It prints out PostScript, which you can feed through GhostScript with the proper driver for your printer. We have a Color Stylus 800 at work, and I print to it using AbiWord often, it's just a matter of setting up your print filters. If you have a PostScript printer, just send the output there.
    no decent font support in X11
    I'm not sure what you mean by that. What features is it missing? We have yet to get around to visual kerning pairs, advanced leading and character transformations. Those are scheduled. Beyond that, we just use Type1 fonts, and if you have your own files and metrics, you can easily add them to the fonts.dir files we read. A visual, programmatic method of doing this will follow.
    huge binaries which require at least 64M RAM
    I think you're greatly mistaken there, sir. This is a debug version, as of today's CVS tree, with all asserts and debug features enabled (the largest it will ever be now):

    sterwill 30401 14.7 3.2 6248 4168 p7 S 11:08 0:01 ./AbiWord

    That is just 4 MB of real, non-shared, non-cached RAM it is using. I'm also using debug and non-optimized builds of GTK and GLIB for debugging purposes. I believe you were about 60 MB off.

    the dependency on GTK is what needs work
    Then use the Windows port. Or the BeOS port. Or the MacOS port. Or write a Qt port. We don't plan on dismembering the GTK port; it's come a long way and people are happy with it, and you're always free to submit code.
  • XFree86 3.3.3.1 server binary?
    Well, I guess I didn't understand what you meant. However, it does not require "XFree86 3.3.3.1". You are free to use any X11 implementation you want, and if it works with GTK, AbiWord will also work with it. AbiWord's Unix builds also require an operating system kernel, an ANCI C library, and some sort of shell to start the process, but I've never heard of anyone including the sizes of these in their analysis of an application's memory usage.
    You can not run X11 on older machines with 32M ram
    You absolutely can. I've run AbiWord, as of last week, on a 16 MB 486/66 running Linux 2.0 and XFree86 3.3.2. In fact, my sister wrote a school paper on that very machine that night, saved it to disk, FTP'ed it from her Windows machine (which had a color printer), loaded it in the Windows version of AbiWord and printed it.
    and about font support, no anti-alias in X11?
    Yes, the X protocol only allows for bitmapped (1-bit depth) images of rendered font glyphs. If you want to start a project to change the X protocol and implement these changes in all existing X applications, please feel free to do so. I'll try to give my help where possible, if requested. There are other (client-side) methods of rendering fonts, but they're all slow, especially on remotely displayed windows via X. I've tried it, and even without anti-aliasing (but pure client-side font rendering), it's still very slow.
    I never suggest to dismember GTK port!?
    Then how does "the dependency on GTK is what needs work.." apply? Should we just depend on it in different ways? :)
  • People buy Windows because it runs apps, not because it's Windows -- this is why Linux isn't huge. It has no (full-grown) mouse-clicky apps that people want and need. MS' monopoly is in Office, not in Windows.

    For this reason I consider it possible that the story is true, but unlikely because Linux lacks a lot of what Windows users have come to expect. (Another way to put it: Windows lacks a lot of what Linux users have come to expect.)

    And yes, most of Office is in VB, if what I hear is true. That would explain the lack of performance!

    Those things said, I'll never use it if they do port it -- it's proprietary and will very much have the effect of deterring new development in free-as-in-speech office suites.

    Help out with AbiWord/KWord/LyX/Thot!!! We don't need or want proprietary software. People who use proprietary applications on free OSs are completely missing the point.

  • Maybe MS will learn something about coding during this project.

    ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!

  • by Danse ( 1026 )

    That's a mighty hostile response there. I sense a lot of insecurity eminating from your post. Perhaps you are feeling inadequate because your MSPaperclip rejected you? Now you are bitter and resent others having pleasant relationships with their software.

    Just a thought. I could be wrong. Anyway, that wasn't a well thought out response. First of all, you assume that MSOffice allows you to focus on the content rather than screw with the software. Hmm.. obviously you haven't tried to use a toc and section/page numbers in a large document. Even Microsoft execs couldn't do it right for their court statements. Second, you assume that there aren't any office suites for Linux that allow you to focus on content. I think you were wrong on both counts.

    Ha!.. just as I'm writing this, Excel just crashed on my boss' computer and took everything with it. Funny.

  • For free applications to be used over commercial apps they need 150% of the functionality. Cost is not an issue, Microsoft has made a business out of having their software pirated, and benefitted very much so in the long run.

    I don't agree that free apps need 150% of the functionality. One of the things that makes them better is that they don't include a bunch of useless junk that almost nobody would ever use. Even somewhat advanced users use only about half of the functionality in MS Office. They don't use any of the other features for 2 main reasons. First, the features are difficult and/or buggy. Second, there are better/easier ways to accomplish the desired effect.

    The free office suites don't need all the useless extras in order to compete. They need to do all the basics, and do them better and faster than Microsoft. Then, if other features are needed, they can be added. First and foremost though, the app must be stable and run as fast as possible. Do that and people will use it.

  • MS makes the most profit from their office suite because they control the platform it runs on and nobody can really compete with them there. It's the defacto standard. MS wouldn't last long if it actually had to compete on even ground. I don't think they'll get into Linux in any serious way. There is too much ill will towards them in the Linux community and too much competition right now as well. They wouldn't last.

  • The browser threatened to make the OS a commodity. If the browser ran on several platforms and could do the same things on all of them, it wouldn't matter what OS you ran. That could kill Windows, which would, in turn, kill their Office monopoly which is where they make their money. That's why Netscape had to go.

  • The only time software is immoral is when it is used to hurt other people.

    Actually, I'd say that the person using the software was immoral. Not the software itself. Software is inanimate. It can't be immoral.

  • They can't optimize like they do for Windows... at least the end result won't be the same. In Windows, they know all the tricks that they don't make public. This makes their software seem more on par with faster software, despite the bloat. In Linux, they bloat would be readily apparent and nobody would want to use something like that.

  • I'm happy with Star Office, when I actually need one of those silly things, which is infrequent.

    I don't understand how "switch[ing] between StarOffice and other apps for several times" would have any effect. There's no notion of a currently active app in Linux or any other version of Linux. There is the notion of a window having focus, but that's rather trivial in nature. When I use StarOffice, I put it in its own virtual desktop so it doesn't clutter (or hide) everything else I have running, and so I switch to that desktop (or page, or whatever Enlightenment calls it). I frequently switch back and forth rapidly between it and another virtual desktop with no ill effects.

    Yes, I've had a few SO5 crashes, but as other people have stated, I've never lost any work. I'm none too thrilled about that anyway, but it has no effect on the OS.

    Performance-wise, it's just fine, although admittedly it's easier to deal with on a Celeron 300/450A and 128 MB than a K6-233 and 64 MB. And in terms of integration between modules, it blows Office (95, at least; I haven't used anything more recent) clean out of the water.
  • Of course they can also say if they DON'T sell any apps that there's no market on Linux. Vendors flee, and Linux goes the way of being a server only OS.

    Broad generalizations, yes, but it might happen.

    Honestly, though, I don't think this is all a bad thing. I'm hoping even MS is surprised by this move (if it even comes to fruition)
  • C'mon, do you believe in the halloween documents? Do you believe in this Office story? The only time when MS remembers the existance of Linux is when it mentions it on trial. "Linux is no threat to MS.. Oh, wait a minute.. Linux is a big threat to MS and so there is no monopoly.."

    That's funny.
    Have you noticed that the acronym OSS has been first used in the halloween memos?
  • And you are a fool. Everybody knows that there will never be a port of a microsoft product to linux for the simple reason that the linux user base and microsoft dislike each other too much. This is nothing but an attempt by Microsoft to delay the adoption of linux and it won't work. People are pretty much fed up with the vaporware from microsoft and this kind of thing won't help microsoft, but rather bolster the DOJ's case against microsoft, since it's widely known and acknowleged that microsoft has little or no role to play within linux. Why do you really think chrome effects got shelved? It was most likely because microsoft couldn't get the non-microsoft world to embrace the concept, let alone support it.
  • An Anonymous Coward wrote:
    Their windows monopoly comes from office. This is just to extend the office monopoly.

    It's not as simple as that.

    If I wanted to put it simply, I would say this: The Windows Monopoly came from their DOS Monopoly, which in turn, came from their Pretty High DOS Market Share and the unfair ways in which they took advantage of it (making programs like Windows not run (or give the appearance of not running) under other versions of DOS, licensing agreements which forbid or discouraged vendors from shipping competing versions of DOS, and other things that integrated together). This is what Caldera Thin Clients [calderathin.com] is suing [calderathin.com] Microsoft over.

    The above sounds pretty reasonable and accurate, but it leaves out a lot of details. It does seem pretty complicated to explain precisely how Microsoft got its near-monopoly since they've done so many things that wouldn't do much for Microsoft without eachother to obtain it in the first place. A diagram with lots of circles and arrows and stuff might help.

  • SaDan wrote:

    Why would Microsoft port Office to Linux in the first place? Why spend all the time, money, and effort on an operating system that you know they can't stand see get popular? I smell a rat...

    Perhaps the proper question is this: Why would Microsoft want you to believe they're going to port their important application software to Unix platforms? The reason seems to be clear: to make people think Microsoft is genuinely committed to cross-platform environments. It's not like Microsoft is in a hurry to actually do anything. They'd much rather have everyone using Windows, and actually porting their application software to most popular Unix platforms won't exactly help that happen, even though they'll be more than happy to give lip service.

    Witness their similar *cough* efforts *hack* at porting Internet Explorer and NetShow/Windows Media Player to Unix platforms.

    Only recently, after a year of promising, did Microsoft actually produce versions of IE for HP-UX and Solaris [microsoft.com] (IE 5 Beta for HP-UX is actually available). You'd think they would be able port to other Unix platforms about as quickly. A few months ago I witnessed a friend loading the HP-UX version of IE on an HP 700RX (I think that's the model) X terminal connected to a HP 9000/780 (J- or K-series, methinks) workstation, and it took ten minutes to load and was pretty slow.

    And Microsoft has been saying they would make a version of WMP for Unix available soon for months. A NetShow (predecessor to WMP) player for Linux and a few other Unix platforms is also available [microsoft.com], but that page isn't linked from the WMP Download page [microsoft.com] anymore, and I actually tried the player on some videos that a company I work for produced but it wouldn't work.

    To sum it up, they're not doing a very good job of developing cross-platform software, IMHO. And I guess this is your rat, unless you're smelling another rat.

  • Anyways. How many products did Microsoft actually finish porting after the company which was already attempting a competing port got scared off by Microsoft's plan?

    The last one was RealPlayer, which Microsoft killed off by introducing an alpha of NetShow without ever finishing it.

    Then there was beta of IE4 for unix, which scared off Netscape from ever releasing a browser after 4.5.

    And why the fsck do these comments submit when I hit return?
  • "MS isn't good at ports"

    I'd suggest: "MS isn't good at software."

    If you could shrink-wrap and sell marketing off the shelf, THEN you'd really see a monopoly.
  • But the availability of Office on Linux might make it possible for me to get my college to switch supported OS to Linux. The Information Technology Committee has been toying with this idea for all this year. Star Office on Windows machines has been a dismal failure with the users. The damn thing is so complicated that it has scared every user we got to test it and they went running back to Office.

    I would never use it, or any other MicroSoft product, but if it helps us to replace windows...

    If it helps to squash StarOffice, WordPerfect and the Open Source efforts, it is a bad thing. And lets be real, that is the ONLY reason MicroSoft would even be considering it.
  • >Or do you just assume that Rob's little place is so fucking gay that no one can keep away?

    Maybe I'm the only one, but I'm failing to see the connection between homosexuality and where comments are posted.

    You refer to the low quality of comments here, yet you add a bigotted rant yourself? Maybe you should look to yourself to start improving the quality of comments here.
  • > The Windoze version has ALOT worse performance than the Linux version.

    It is, however, far more stable, at least in my experience.
  • by Thandor ( 1371 )
    Why is it that so many people are so blinded by the fact IE is made by Microsoft? I'm not a Microsoft fan myself, but I can see the technical merits IE has, which are far in excess of the credit it is given on slashdot. In fact, in my experience, in terms of stability, performance, and rendering quality, it outperforms netscape.

    Unfortunately, some people see fit to use the very same trick they hate when Microsoft uses it against Linux - FUD.

    IE may not be original, it may not come from your favorite company in the world, it may be windows only, but don't let that cloud your vision of the actual product itself.
  • "My opinion is that the last thing the world needs is Office for Linux. It is a usability nightmare."

    which? Office, or Linux?
  • Their contract with SCO over xenix states they can't compete in the Unix world. They might be able to get around this with Linux since Linux doesn't have Unix branding but it would be a big court fight.. Not that they wouldn't find a way to do it if they could make money on it, but the Linux world is so philisophically removed from the MS world, it's hard to see the match.
  • Never fear, brave Linuxers. Microsoft isn't going to port Office to Linux until it becomes completely apparent to everyone and their dog that Windows 2000 won't fly. This sort of announcement is the sort of completely deniable statement that Microsoft has always used to lock down the consumers and keep them from buying into a competitors product.

    "Don't switch to Corel PerfectOffice under Linux just yet," says Bill Gates, "If you wait just a little bit I will port Office to Linux." This way Microsoft keeps people from shying, if just for the short term, and gets them to create just one more big spreadsheet, or application that would need to be ported.

    By the time the customer realizes that Microsoft has been pulling their chain, it's too late. They have all of a sudden made an even more significant investment to Microsoft's closed architecture.

    This isn't about Microsoft feeling out the Linux waters. This is about Microsoft keeping people from trying Wordperfect 8 running on top of an operating system that isn't going to crash on them 4 times in a hour. After all, in the software business it is almost as important to make sure that your competitors _don't_ get customers as it is important that you round up customers for your own product.

    Jason
  • I must admit that I have gotten pretty relaxed about letting software install itself where it wants. Most times I don't even look at the Makefile unless It doesn't compile. Of course, this really isn't a big deal with OSS apps (and even closed WordPerfect was at least well-behaved).

    There is no way that I would install MS Office 2000 for Linux as root, however. I have had enough of DLL Hell to last me a lifetime. If the operating system needs to be modified to run Office then thanks, but no thanks.

    Not that Microsoft is seriously considering porting to Linux. They wouldn't have a chance of competing if it weren't for the OS leverage.

    Not to mention the fact that people like winners, and Microsoft is the biggest winner of all (right now). If Microsoft ceded the desktop to Linux they would undoubtedly be perceived as having lost. Their stock price would drop. Their most talented programmers would look for work elsewhere (it's the stock options that's got them tied down), and Microsoft would cease to be king.

    Of course, they would still have a big pile of money :). They wouldn't go away, they would just have to play fair.
  • The good news is that if Microsoft did try to embrace and extend Linux they would have to do a good job of it. None of the current Linuxers would tolerate Linux middleware that was worse than the tools we already have for Linux.

    Or in other words, Microsoft's stuff would have to be very good, or it wouldn't get used. It would, at the very least, have to be as good (or at least less expensive) than the Windows tools. Basically, Microsoft would probably have to give up it's current desktop monopoly for a piece of Linux's future.

    This would actually be good for several reasons

    1) Hardware manufacturers would HAVE to give out programming specs (Linux would be the dominant platform).

    2) Microsoft would have to compete on a more level playing field. It wouldn't be completely level (as they would undoubtedly have their own secret libraries), but it would be world's better.

    3) People forced to use MS software would at least have a stable platform on which to run it.

    Jason
  • This isn't something regular users can do (unless they have root or root rights).

    Actually it is very possible to install most Linux software in the users home directory. I personally have installed whole window managers, and their accompanying applications in my home directory. At the very least it shouldn't have to install anything outside of /usr/local . You would have to be crazy to install a Microsoft application as root.

  • MS-Office, Star Office, Applix ware, Koffice, Wordperfect suite....

    It means choice.... those who have a need for it will use MS-Office. Those without need can choose anything they like...

    But i do admit that it is a scary thought.... MS entering the OSS market....
  • Although WP or Star Office are better than MS Office, people seem to choose the latter because "everyone else does". So my bet is that MS Office for Linux wood be a hit in Corporate Office land...

    My choice would be different though... i'm waiting for Koffice to enter into stable territory. For the moment i'm using StarOffice... but it's too sluggish and far too much MS looking to my liking



  • Someone at ZDNet observed that while porting Office is not impossible, Micros~1 will have problems with GPF and BSOD emulation. But i believe i have a workable solution to the GPF situation... use code profiling libraries to capture segmentation faults and bus errors, and jump from there to the familiar, user-friendly GPF interface that Windows users demand. Besides maintaining the consistent user experience that is Micros~1's trademark, this solution has another advantage... profiling should effectively emulate the interactive performance of Windows NT.

    I'm still working on a BSOD emulation mechanism. So far, all i can come up with is a kernel patch, which isn't close enough to a full OS reinstall to satisfy traditional Micros~1 user demands for ease of use. However, it should be able to perform simple Windows functionality like freezing the mouse and disabling Ctrl-Alt-Delete.
  • There is no Office97 for Mac... they are staggering releases between platforms, so Mac users got Office98 and Exlorer 4.5.

    In any case, all their claims about Office98 being a Mac-native app are obviously bullshit, no app without 10 nested compatibility/abstractions layers would possibly be as slow and resource-hungry as it is. Its features are totally counter-intuitive, and forget about large documents or intensive uses, all the modules will crumble on the mightiest, and slablest, of machines.
    Binary Boy [mailto]

    If you think education is expensive, try ignorance.
    -- Derek Bok,
  • Well said! The world can, as we all did, come to Linux, and not the other way around... there is no need to waste precious time and focus (since money has been traditionally less of a currency in this community) "battling" Microsoft when I think its ridiculous to even lump the two together as opponents... proprietary OS developers have no interest in the goals and strategies of the OSS community, and likewise, save vendors like RedHat, we should pay no interest to what they consider "business" since Linux wasn't created as a commercial product to begin with...

    anyways, lets all just turn our noses and not even glance sideways at those devils in Washington... comparing Linux to NT only makes those presenting the comparison look like fools because they miss the point of OSS entirely... the goal isnt to compete with proprietary, it is to provide viable alternatives for those brave and pioneering geeks among us :) maybe someday the OSS syndrome will be significantly dominant that producing proprietary software will not be realistic, and until then, just ignore the other side.

    Binary Boy [mailto]

    If you think education is expensive, try ignorance.
    -- Derek Bok,
  • Very astute, and I hope no one will be suprised when the release performs exactly as you say... for anyone who has used Office98 (a Mac-only release), or even read the benchmarks, Im sure you know what I mean...

    When PowerPC-based machine performs an ORDER OF MAGNITUDE slower than a comparable x86 box in Excel on raw calculations you think someone would be fired, but Im sure the marketing genius in charge of insuring crippling performance in Mac apps gets a bonus everytime they make another office worker convert because of unacceptible performance.

    Sure, launch time may not be as bad as Word 6.0 was (we're talking two-digit minute counts), but at least once it ran it didnt seem especially lame... Office98 runs like a mangey, one-legged pony.


    Binary Boy [mailto]

    If you think education is expensive, try ignorance.
    -- Derek Bok,
  • Something like this may happen the day MS decides that it's windwos monopoly is gone. Then they would have to defend the Office monopoly by porting to java or linux (or whatever is big at the time). Personally though, I don't believe the monopoly is all that strong. I've been living happily with linux and staroffice for quite some time now. The apps are getting there and word 9x or excel seems to be no problem either.
    To me MS is facing a citutation very similar to Novel in the early 90's and linux is very much like the internet it self at the time.

    Cheers,
    Jarek
  • Who'd want to use it?
    It's a pig (no offense to pigs..)
    Of course it would give those with Very Little Brain some faint comfort..

    t_t_b

    --
  • There may be something to that..
    One possible outcome of the fed's lawsuit could be to split M$ into two: app's and OS'es
    So M$ would be happy to have Office on Linux - I just doubt very much that they could do anything but a crappy job of it..
    t_t_b

    --
  • ..to pigs..
    t_t_b

    --
  • Fuck me?
    Not..
    I gotta use M$ Office 97 on Win95 with "Active Desktop" and all that crap at work and it's a pig!
    (no offense..)
    That's on a box with an AMD 233 and 48mb ram!
    It's a pig!
    M$ can't ever pare down their fat junk to any reasonable degree -- you won't find *any* M$ app that's gotten anything but fatter and fatter and fatter over the years.
    They won't have a chance of putting out anything for Linux that's not worse than what they've already got!
    Which is a pig!
    - moi
    ps: I use pico under Linux and SuperNote Tab under Win95..
    --
  • Never fear, brave Linuxers. Microsoft isn't going to port Office to Linux until it becomes completely apparent to everyone and their dog that Windows 2000 won't fly.

    Perhaps everyone at MS is already aware of that. 35 million lines of code (written using Microsoft's cowboy coding practices too), release delays, bugs galore. They've even put on hold their plans to replace 95/98 with NT. Perhaps they've realised that if they get it out in 2000, it will be a bloodbath, doing worse damage to their reputation than shelving it indefinitely...

    Compare this to Apple and Copland. They knew that the rewrite of the overgrown and convoluted MacOS wasn't going to fly, and binned it. And NT is more of a problem than MacOS was.
  • This wouldn't be the first time that Microsoft has done something like this. Case in point, they took a lot of the wind out of Mac's sails with office. They apparently left the windoze code in the mac version, which made the code more bloated than it already is. This led to crashes and instability. McDonnell Douglas (and probably others) went from being mainly Mac to mainly Windoze pcs because of Word. It wouldn't surprise me a bit if they were up to this same crap again.
  • > Instructions:
    > To Install, log in as root, Office will ask you > for your root password

    > It is recommended that you run this application > as root.

    And did we neglect to mention that we will send your system information, including passwords, system information and installed applications to our marketing and security directorates in Redmond? We will also attach encrypted information to each document to be sent out.

  • Linux is like the net in that its publically owned. If you really worked for microsoft I would be appauled if office was being ported to linux. As a ms employee you know that the office revolution started with bundling as an attempt to squash os/2. If office was the standard and consumers couldn't even share data with the world with os/2, then it would die. Office, I admit is better but I believe ms made office as a political move to sell windows. Microsoft needs one competitor in the market so thats why office is developed for the mac. If anti-trust laws didn't exist, would you write ofice for the mac? I think not. Microsoft has behaved in many anti competitive practices and I can't think of any reason why ms would port office to the linux, other then to destroy it. You mentioned that you believe in a all-Microsoft computing enviroment but linux is a problem because everything is opened and its much easier to compete and you lose money because of windows isn't part of the office solution.
  • and Linux can't. Stamp out all remaining office competitors, then yank office away and let Linux flap in the wind.


    --
    As long as each individual is facing the TV tube alone, formal freedom poses no threat to privilege.
  • I think this would be great. I might not personally buy it (I'm an old school WP user), but we'd probably buy copies for the 50+ end users at work.
    I'll take more choice any day, even if they aren't necessarily the best choices.
  • How do you play it?
  • Nope, the packaging mechanism would be called MEEPT. :)

    The Microsoft Extend and Embrace Package Transport, MEEPT. To be released Very Soon Now from the Borg Near You.

  • NT on the new Pentium II-350's at my college takes longer to *shut down* than Linux does to *start* on my K5-133!

    NT at work takes longer to log in than it takes my Linux box to start.

    Sometimes I wonder what NT does during that time and if it really is a multiuser OS.

  • Well put.

    M$ is infamous for announcing software that they may never ship, just to keep people from rushing out to buy the competitors products. This is one of the dirty tricks that M$ learned from IBM. This is one of the questionable business practices that IBM was forced to abandon as a result of its federal anti-trust trial. IBM had to wait until just few months (forgot exact number, = 3 ?) before a product would actually ship before they were allowed to announe the product.

  • at Alice's restaurant, 'ceptin Alice.

  • On rare occasions I'm forced to use Word. It drives me absolutely _insane_. It keeps trying to _guess_ what I'm doing. So I'll do some clever formatting. The next paragraph, it'll do the formatting for me, and I'll say, "Wow! clever!". But then I'll want to _stop_ or change the formatting and I have to fight it. So total work contributed is 0.

    I prefer LyX or LaTeX. I _tell_ it what I'm doing and it formats it. No thought involved. Just type :) Much more efficient, and everything comes out in beautiful TeX. Everyone at CMU already uses TeX anyhow -- math, science, CS, you name it. To the point where no one notices or comments when I sit and type papers in a cluster on an ultrasparc. Hehe.

    Excel is pretty good (I like it anyhow, and I've had to do some decently hefty data analysis w/it). But according to Ian the GNOME Games Maintainer "gnumeric does everything and is excel compatible. The only thing it can't hack yet are charts." The solution? Keep a windoze box around for the occasional chart.

    Actually, that's a feature I miss. I have wp8 personal (tho I never use it) and it has the charts stripped out. I generally have to use chart stuff in WP6.1, which is the last word processor I paid for. Sure it's for windoze, and it's 16bit code, but it's a great wordprocessor (I kinda prefer it to wp[7,8] :) and it runs nicely on a 486/33 (my little brother's computer) and I've _never_ in my life needed a bit of functionality that wasn't in there.

    I hope the nice gnumeric people (or the nice KDE people for that matter) get us a beautiful, excel compatible chart program to link into the spreadsheet stuff soon, then we'll be complete :)

    The Linux desktop kicks the tail off windoze any day of the week ending in y (note that linux goes on vacation {d elem days | d does not end in y} while windoze takes off {d elem days | d ends in y}) hehe too much 15-251.
  • I'm going to make a recommendation here.

    Support the free (speech not beer) office suites. Support gnumeric. Support the KDE spreadsheet whatever the hell it's called. Support the KDE wordprocessor and the gnome one, whatever the hell they're called too. Support LyX especially 'cos it rules and it's the best and Matthias Ettrich invented it for us.

    Don't support them because you have a philosophical objection to the commercial ones. Support them 'cos the commercial ones _bite_. Why is it that my version of wordperfect from 1993 is an amazingly tight word processor and has every function I need and runs like _lightning_ on a slow low mem pentium, and my current computer (k6-200) can't run word97 well?

    All the new office programs are crashy, poorly done bloatware. They add "features" in such a way to destroy the core ease-of-use and functionality of the programs. Have you ever _seen_ how many incomprehensible little buttons the latest ver of Word clutters your screen with? I swear the symbols are in Vulcan (klingon?).

    Exert some pressure for clean, stable, well-designed, functional, elegant, fast-as-nuts word processors. Ensure the survival of the best code. Sure, demand compatibility. It's necessary. But support the free office.

    Send your free (speech) office development teams some free beer today to let them know you care.

    And stick it to the man who wants to give you annoying office suites that just exist to piss you off. He _personally_ came up with the damn paper clip. With _malicious intent_. Really.
  • Ya know, a year ago I got hooked on /. I thought what a great place cool ppl etc....

    But you ppl are about the most closed minded obnoxious jerks I've run across in a long long time.

    "IF IT AIN'T LINUX, IT AIN'T COOL"
    BS!

    You ppl are as bad as Billy Boy. He uses MS to get control.. You ppl use LINUX and are just as bigotted.

    If MS ports OFFICE over to LINUX Great! If not oh well. Who cares?

    But think about this... Wouldn't more users be inclined to try LINUX if they had applications they are familiar with to work on?

    Go ahead flame me... I've seen the worst you ppl can do and I am not impressed.

    Impress me by making an Office Suite that would do everything MS office does w/o all the bugs and fat.

    Go ahead... prove me wrong about my assumptions based on a year of reading what you ppl post.

    P.S. And try to use language with more than four letters.....
  • MS has never earned anything. Their very first product, a BASIC interpreter was based on code stolen from Wang and was written (by Paul Allen) on a governmental time-sharing system in violation of their terms of use.

    "Word" was originally called "Quill" and was written by some little company in Louisiana around 1981. MS bought it when they needed a word processor to sell to a Japanese client.

    MS never writes anything, and they don't make excellent products. They buy OK products and then make them unstable, unfriendly and unusable (oops, I meant to say "user-friendly").

    Learn the truth before you go spouting the MS Party Line.

    --
  • You spelled "parallel" wrong :)

    Ato de!

    --
  • 'Cause they're run by suits, not hackers ;-)

    ElpDragon.


  • I seriously doubt MS would use anything not developed by them to run Office.... they'll probably static-link everything, either that or dump a buncha proprietary libs all over the fs...



    ElpDragon

  • In doing so, they did have to port many of the Windows APIs over to these platforms.

    Or Mainsoft [mainsoft.com] did.

  • for various reasons. The easiest being that Star Division, Corel, Applix, etc. have incentive to make a cool product that is affordable. MS has incentive to make a temporarily affordable product that will eventually defy standards and cost too much $$$. They are so transparent.

    So if they are diverting any $$$ to a product for Linux, fine. It's fewer $$$ spent on that windows garbage.
  • Compatibility with and capabilities of Microsoft Office are the biggest obstacles for a lot of users who would otherwise switch away from Windows. Microsoft is not about to kill a ton of OS revenue for a few more office suite sales.

    Besides, since when does Microsoft write software for a competing x86 OS? A couple Mac ports, a Solaris/SPARC port of IE, fine - those are platforms that Windows will never run on anyway. Is there a Solaris/x86 port of IE? Was there ever any OS/2 software from Microsoft? Linux, on the other hand, threatens to take people away from Microsoft and keep them away. There's no way they would do anything to accelerate that process.

    Oh, yeah, and they'd rue the day that one of the technically-challenged reporters covering Linux accidentally installs it on two computers, and discovers X is network-transparent.
    "Hey, everybody, we can run and administer Office from our servers now, without waiting for W2K to materialize. All we have to do is upgrade all these obsolete Win98 client systems to Unix!"
  • I would imagine MS only is developing this in case Linux becomes more popular than they presently believe it will. They are just keeping their bases covered. If Linux doesn't dominate the market, the Linux version of Office will remain safely tucked away in a back room in Redmond.
    If they do release it though, I would imagine they will give away their own Linux distribution with each copy of Office they sell.
    The question then, is will Office Linux run on the X11 Windowing system or will MS try to develop their own GUI for Linux?
  • Yes, they are probably porting it and the applications division wants to deliver it, but as it obviously eats NT sales, the operating system division is probably not too happy about it. This is exacly what happened to IE4 for Linux. They did port it to Linux (I am not sure if they actually finished the port), but they never released the thing.
  • Gee, anyone remember Microsoft's "commitment" to pure Java?

    another almost laughable one:
    Microsoft's commitment to open web standards!

    bah hah hah
    First - they dynamically allocate less download bandwidth for Netscape browsers, so when I want drivers I get them at 2 kb per second on a T3. I've proven this by instantiating an IE download of the same URL on the same computer, where IE "somehow" downloaded the same file FOURTY-SEVEN TIMES FASTER. Hmm..

    Second - They block non-Microsoft web browsers from critical parts of their web site. Want information on Microsoft's year 2000 bugs.. well, they refuse to show you if you use Netscape or Opera. Want to complain about it on the Feedback page? You're also blocked. Those Microsofties are such Klever D00dz

    Third - A patent on style sheets? I think I remember using them in Quark *years* ago, before Microsoft (or at least that clueless putz BillG) had even HEARD of "the Internet".

    Fourth - Anyone ever try to take Microsoft documents across platforms? The #1 reason I cannot choose a Mac for my personal/email workstation is because people know firsthand how committed to Quality Assurance. They leave bugs and incompatabilities in the product so there's always a reason not to stray from Windows, or if you're on a Mac, a reason for your boss or IT to apply pressure for you to switch.

    Fifth - What a GREAT way to FUD Corel. Corel stock is looking better these days, but what better way to kick these people in the balls by spreading rumors of Office for Linux. They don't even have to RELEASE anything... just vaporware it.
  • by martini ( 4613 )
    I can tell you exactly how MS will do it. They will attempt to use a product called MainWin which provides a Win32 implementation on several version of UNIX. The end result will be a binary native application but it will have the same look and feel and usability as the Windows version. They are definitely not rewriting their Win32 code. I am involved in porting a Win32/MFC/COM product to Solaris and HP and am using a similar method. If you want more details about these Win32 implementations see http://www.bristol.com and http://www.mainsoft.com
  • Bullshit. Microsoft probably seeks to gain the exact opposite effect: "Microsoft has a Linux strategy for their office suite, so why the hell should we?"...
  • I can only see Office in the near future running
    in Linux if it is writen in Java.

    A gtk+ version would be great. :-)

    C-ya

HELP!!!! I'm being held prisoner in /usr/games/lib!

Working...