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?
Sounds kinda fishy to me... (Score:1)
Belive it when I see it. (Score:1)
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.
Vaporware Anyone? (Score:1)
Commodore killed the Amiga, noone else gets to take any of the credit for that.
You first! (Score:1)
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?
Consider AbiWord as a GPL alternative to MS Word (Score:1)
Consider AbiWord as a GPL alternative to MS Word (Score:1)
This will all be fine (Score:1)
> 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.
Installing Linux Office 2000 (Score:1)
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.
---
Crap (Score:1)
Hey, try out StarOffice (Score:1)
MS Office for Linux a good thing. (Score:1)
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.
eh...big deal! (Score:1)
Dont drink the water !! (Score:1)
how about star office for windows? (Score:1)
Microsoft is a good company!!!!! (Score:1)
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...
MSLinux Office requires Linux Kernel 2000-MS. (Score:1)
Chris, who has all-non-MS ways of doing all sorts of things on Macs _and_ linuxPPC...
You child (Score:1)
How is this different from 'when you try to edit text it will not work or even make the problem worse'? o_O
I know why ms is doing this. Its to screw up the k (Score:1)
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...
GPL Authors: Change Your Licenses!! (Score:1)
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!
Are you kidding? (Score:1)
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
What a great way to FUD Corel (or kick in nutz) (Score:1)
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_.
Better Competion could be involved then (Score:1)
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
I just love Vaporware... (Score:1)
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.
running as root (Score:1)
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
Microsoft is a good company!!!!! (Score:1)
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...;)
I wouldn't buy it anyway and you shouldn't either (Score:1)
Yup. You got it right.
It sounds good.....
but it's basically
FUD
FUD
FUD
Bill Gates will not go down! (Score:1)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
It's the only thing they make that's any good (Score:1)
Office is M$'s only product that's worth a tinker's damn but I don't care whether they port it or not.
Fuck you (Score:1)
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.
Qt, of course (Score:1)
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
Stuff it needs. (Score:1)
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.
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.Stuff it needs. (Score:1)
The OS doesn't matter (Score:1)
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.
Sounds interesting (Score:1)
Maybe MS will learn something about coding during this project.
ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!
Wow... (Score:1)
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.
Is anyone thinking of the FUD aspect!!! (Score:1)
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.
Not exactly... (Score:1)
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.
Umm.. no (Score:1)
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.
Cast that ungodly software into the flames...etc.. (Score:1)
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.
Not like Windows.. (Score:1)
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.
Hey, try out StarOffice (Score:1)
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.
Microsoft's chance for Office monopoly on Linux! (Score:1)
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)
MS doesn't give a damn about Linux! (Score:1)
That's funny.
Have you noticed that the acronym OSS has been first used in the halloween memos?
Fuck you (Score:1)
Yes, their true monopoly is Windows. (Score:1)
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.
Lip Service. (Score:1)
SaDan wrote:
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.
Either that or Corel is porting an office suite. (Score:1)
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?
Generalising one point (Score:1)
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.
I hate to admit it... (Score:1)
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.
You first! (Score:1)
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.
this is a complicated matter! (Score:1)
It is, however, far more stable, at least in my experience.
IE (Score:1)
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.
"pseudocode engine" (Score:1)
which? Office, or Linux?
MS Linux in the future? (Score:1)
Relax, it's just FUD. (Score:1)
"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
Installing Linux Office 2000 (Score:1)
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
Embrace & Extend - Windows API and MFC on Linux (Score:1)
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
You need to have permissions to mod the kernel. (Score:1)
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.
Pro Choice (Score:1)
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....
RE:MS Office is way too expensive + Lotus 4 Linux (Score:1)
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
GPF, BSOD emulation (Score:1)
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.
They did it with MacOS, why not XWin? (Score:1)
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,
M$ office on Linux? (Score:1)
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
Binary Boy [mailto]
If you think education is expensive, try ignorance.
-- Derek Bok,
Sounds kinda fishy to me... (Score:1)
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,
Office vs. Windows (Score:1)
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
M$ office on Linux? (Score:1)
It's a pig (no offense to pigs..)
Of course it would give those with Very Little Brain some faint comfort..
t_t_b
--
Sounds kinda fishy to me... (Score:1)
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
--
No offense.. (Score:1)
t_t_b
--
Fuck you (Score:1)
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..
--
Relax, it's just FUD. (Score:1)
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.
Conspiracy? (Score:1)
running as root (Score:1)
> 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.
?? which managers. Linux is like the internet. (Score:1)
Because Corel can be crushed (Score:1)
--
As long as each individual is facing the TV tube alone, formal freedom poses no threat to privilege.
Where do I send the check. (Score:1)
I'll take more choice any day, even if they aren't necessarily the best choices.
But will they port... (Score:1)
Embrace Might Backfire (Score:1)
The Microsoft Extend and Embrace Package Transport, MEEPT. To be released Very Soon Now from the Borg Near You.
So user friendly (Score:1)
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.
Wish I had said that. (Score:1)
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.
You can get anything you want (Score:1)
Eh, BFD (Score:1)
I prefer LyX or LaTeX. I _tell_ it what I'm doing and it formats it. No thought involved. Just type
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]
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.
Yet another comment about things like beer (Score:1)
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.
You people make me sick (Score:1)
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.....
they "earned" it with Office though (Score:1)
"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.
--
Remember the Cold War? (Score:1)
Ato de!
--
Welcome to Microsoft OfffiSegmentation Fault (core (Score:1)
'Cause they're run by suits, not hackers ;-)
ElpDragon.
GTK+ version... not likely, unfortunately... (Score:1)
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
Not too far fetched: may APIs ported already (Score:1)
Or Mainsoft [mainsoft.com] did.
I won't buy it... (Score:1)
So if they are diverting any $$$ to a product for Linux, fine. It's fewer $$$ spent on that windows garbage.
Don't be gullible (Score:1)
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!"
MS-Linux to be distributed with MS-Office? (Score:1)
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?
Porting yes, delivering ? - remember IE4 for Linux (Score:1)
What a great way to FUD Corel (or kick in nutz) (Score:1)
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.
?! (Score:1)
Will probably spur other ports (Score:1)
I only see it in Java 2.0 (Score:1)
in Linux if it is writen in Java.
A gtk+ version would be great.
C-ya