×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

662 comments

Why ? (5, Interesting)

PaintyThePirate (682047) | more than 10 years ago | (#8285717)

Why use Microsoft Office when Open Office [openoffice.org] is getting so good?

why port software? LICKING ASS IS BETTER!!! oh and (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8285733)

to all you dirty jew kike mother fuckers.... DIE DIE DIE!!

Re:Why ? (5, Interesting)

abner23 (724467) | more than 10 years ago | (#8285742)

Access Database support...

Re:Why ? (2, Informative)

betelgeuse-4 (745816) | more than 10 years ago | (#8285883)

IBM should be doing everything they can to discourage the use of MS Access. It's absolutly useless beyond simple, single-user databases.

Re:Why ? (4, Insightful)

ciaran_o_riordan (662132) | more than 10 years ago | (#8285897)

Then IBM should use the money to improve Access Database support in OO.o - or someone has to do it. This current proposal is simply enlarging the DRM control of MS.

Right now we can tell our governments not to use MS Word doc format because it's only available to certain systems. If IBM port MS Office, governments will find it harder to understand the issues involved.

The Enemy isn't MS, it's unfree software. IBM's proposal is not a contribution [gnu.org] .

Re:Why ? (5, Insightful)

Stugots (601806) | more than 10 years ago | (#8285763)

Because the only software that will be 100% compatible with Microsoft Office is Microsoft Office.

Re:Why ? (5, Insightful)

The Limp Devil (513137) | more than 10 years ago | (#8285851)

Ah, but not even Microsoft Office is 100% compatible with Microsoft Office!

Re:Why ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8285869)

>Ah, but not even Microsoft Office is 100% compatible with Microsoft Office!

this is very true. MS Office is imo 95% self-compatible at best.

Re:Why ? (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8285859)

And sometimes, not even then.

Re:Why ? (4, Insightful)

aheath (628369) | more than 10 years ago | (#8285875)

A less obvious reason why Microsoft might want to get behind this effort in order to address antitrust concerns by increasing support for Microsoft Office on non-Microsoft operating systems. Imagine the government of Munich running Microsoft Office on Suse Linux with IBM's support.

It would be great if the Microsoft Office team was given the go ahead to develop a version of Microsoft Office for any commercially succesful platform. I'd like to see the Microsoft Office for Mac OS X team use the UNIX knowledge to develop a supported version of Microsoft Office for Linux.

Re:Why ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8285909)

"Because the only software that will be 100% compatible with Microsoft Office is Microsoft Office." ...sometimes...

Sure? (4, Insightful)

dark-br (473115) | more than 10 years ago | (#8285919)

Because the only software that will be 100% compatible with Microsoft Office is Microsoft Office.

Are you sure? Even between diferent versions of MS Office I usualy have some compatibility problems.

Re:Why ? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8285798)

Because Sun (behind openoffice) and IBM don't like each other. Also because Microsoft and IBM are huge commercial partners and also because PHB trully believe they need Microsoft Office.

If MS office runs on linux, there'll be nothing else closing the road for linux on the corporate desktop.

MY WIENER IS SEXUALLY ATTRACTED TO YOUR ANUS (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8285801)

Re:Why ? (4, Insightful)

$calar (590356) | more than 10 years ago | (#8285806)

I'm sure the name recognition is what makes it so popular also. For instance, Mac users look forward to Microsoft announcing a new version of Office for Mac, because otherwise they might have a hard time getting new people on board. Yes, Office for Mac already exists, so why get in a tizzy? Well, it might look like support will be dropped. MS Office has always been a huge factor, regardless how great OpenOffice, GNOME Office, KOffice, WordPerfect, and others are.

If this program isn't available, they won't touch your platform. I know it's sort of dumb, but it is true.

Re:Why ? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8285826)

Does Open Office have Clippy? I think not!

Re:Why ? (5, Interesting)

Gilesx (525831) | more than 10 years ago | (#8285832)

I'd say a major blocker is the fact that AFAIK Star/Open Office offers next to no support for macros - we use a lot of spreadsheets littered with macros, all of which are commented out when you try to open them in Open Offce :(

Re:Why ? (1)

jrc313 (168973) | more than 10 years ago | (#8285886)

I've only had a little tinker with Open Office - but I've seen what looks like a fairly extensive macro language. It seemed like a wierd Java/BASIC cross.

Re:Why ? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8285840)

I've been using OOo exclusively for the last several months now. And except for one VERY irritating bug*, I think it's a fine replacement.

* For some unknown reason, sometimes when I load a document or spreadsheet, the font will look all jagged and screwed up. Highlighting the text and making it "normal" again fixes it. Though the downside to normalizing the text is that you lose all the formatting. Italics, bold, color, whatever.. If anyone knows why this happens, I'd love to hear about it. It's so aggravating that I'd almost be tempted to buy MS Office if there was a Linux port.

Re:Why ? (2, Informative)

jhoude (610589) | more than 10 years ago | (#8285865)

From the article :
IBM might consider Sun Microsystems Inc.'s StarOffice as an alternative, since StarOffice already runs under Linux. However, this is not on the horizon now.
"It suits us fine the Microsoft and Sun fight about office application suites. We stay away from that. The reason we don't collaborate with Sun is that they're too small," said Pettersson.

Re:Why ? (2, Informative)

beforewisdom (729725) | more than 10 years ago | (#8285910)

Because Open Office is S--L--O--W. Average everyday users also want something that is just like M$ Office..everything they know can be found in the same place.

*ahem* (5, Funny)

Rhinobird (151521) | more than 10 years ago | (#8285721)

Big Bleu cheese and WINE?

Re:*ahem* (4, Interesting)

LehiNephi (695428) | more than 10 years ago | (#8285778)

I'll agree with that--there are already emulators out there. IBM would just be repeating the work done by others.

On the other hand, what are the chances IBM has access to Office source code? And if they have access to it, what are the chances they have contractual permission to take Office and port it to Linux? Well, maybe they do, since M$ isn't threatening to sue.....yet.

And another question--I can't imagine they'll distribute it under GPL once it's ported. M$ will get no additional sales because of it. The people who will use it are people who are locked into Office, but want to switch from Windows to Linux. I imagine they'll be able to use it for free, but how will the distribution be handled? For some reason, I have a hard time imagining "MS Office for Linux" on CompUSA's shelves.

No, wait, I realized how dumb the 'free' comment was--M$ office 'upgrade' to Linux for free? HA!

Cool (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8285722)

Last one using windows is a rotten egg!

Does... (5, Funny)

sparklingfruit (736978) | more than 10 years ago | (#8285725)

Does this mean we'll finally get clippy?

WOOHOO!

good or bad? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8285726)

the moment we've all been waiting for??

Re:good or bad? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8285825)

Not good or bad...just whack...

I'm a Linux user... (0)

Lobo_Louie (545789) | more than 10 years ago | (#8285727)

... but I will never consider it to be desktop-worthy until it it has 100% compatibility with Off*ce.

Too bad the leaked code wasn't Office's latest version.

Oh, I see (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8285728)

Microsoft needs a way to sell massive mainframes running Linux, so they're porting over the biggest, most resource using, application ever: Microsoft Office.

Re:Oh, I see (4, Interesting)

Dr Reducto (665121) | more than 10 years ago | (#8285766)

IBM sells Maiframes, but really, Mainframe only refers to the operating system, not the size of the computer. You can get "mainframes" that fit under your desk.

Not an Emulator (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8285731)

They'd be better served by finding an existing project that doesn't emulate Windows and putting developers on it.

bugs, bugs, bugs (4, Insightful)

ed8150 (554077) | more than 10 years ago | (#8285732)

iam not in favor of this. i would view it as contaminating the linux operating system with MS's foreign programming techniques and bugs. i say IBM should put the effort into developing openoffice or koffice instead of porting the bloated suite that is office.

Re:bugs, bugs, bugs (5, Insightful)

mAineAc (580334) | more than 10 years ago | (#8285783)

The only problem is that 90% of the office users Think that they need MS Office to be productive. About 2% of those users actually use any of the 'features' or even much more than Word. Most people don't know how to set up a macro or even what a macro is or does. THe only thing that is keeping 100% interoperability from happening is the fact that Visual Basic is proprietary and can not be ported to linux at all. now if someone could develope a wrapper that would have the speed and functionality to be able to use Windows macros then Open Office would stand a chance.

Re:bugs, bugs, bugs (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8285809)

I positively agree. If IBM wants to put effort in Office products, they should contribute to Open Office, instead helping MS porting their product.

It is ways more clever to help making an MS compatible free office suit alternative but to subsidize a monopoly.

Now since openoffice is already pretty far developed, a vote for supporting this product at least, koffice could need some more support either. MS does not need any support at all.

If IBM want to put effort in windows emulation, they should support wine. I'd definitely love to run tomb raider on my linux box.

I'm not sure (4, Insightful)

0x0d0a (568518) | more than 10 years ago | (#8285833)

I have to say that MS getting work done for them is a little unsettling. However, the problem is not A Decent Office Suite For Linux. We have at least a usable one, OpenOffice, though it isn't utopian.

The problem is A Decent Office Suite For Linux That Can Interoperate Flawlessly With Microsoft Office. There's a lot of content out there in Office format, and having darn near perfect support for the format is important for any adopters.

Re:bugs, bugs, bugs (4, Insightful)

bloggins02 (468782) | more than 10 years ago | (#8285863)

i would view it as contaminating the linux operating system with MS's foreign programming techniques and bugs

And this, my friends, is the attitude that keeps Linux off the desktop.

There's a word for it: elitism.

You must REALLY hate WINE.

Having said that, it would be nice if a huge company like IBM would get behind a project like OO or KOffice, but the economics of the situation make that look like a very remote possibility. Unforrunately, we have to live in corporate reality when dealing with corporations, no matter how angelic they may seem (this year, anyway).

Change is a comin'... (3, Insightful)

danielrm26 (567852) | more than 10 years ago | (#8285734)

Yet more evidence of the fact that Microsoft's days are numbered. The reasons for various organizations staying with them are steadily being taken away, one by one. I'd like to see one of those counters like they have for various social events counting off the number of organizations that have decided to go with open source as an alternative to MS.

Alas, this is only a good thing. Microsoft isn't wholly evil, they have just become something along those lines due to their position in the marketplace. Some competition capable of putting the fear of God into them will do nothing but improve things for everyone.

Re:Change is a comin'... (1)

sangreal66 (740295) | more than 10 years ago | (#8285853)

Microsofts days are numbered because IBM is trying to expand the number of people who can use Microsoft software? How can one argue with such logic?!

by emulation??/ (2, Informative)

stonebeat.org (562495) | more than 10 years ago | (#8285736)

we already have that. WINE [winehq.com] !!!

Re:by emulation??/ (1)

orzetto (545509) | more than 10 years ago | (#8285852)

Ehm.
Wine
Is
Not an
Emulator.

It's called a compatibility layer.

Just for the pleasure of being picky and fussy... :-)

Hoax? (4, Interesting)

arendjr (673589) | more than 10 years ago | (#8285738)

I'm seriously questioning the validity of this article. It says an IBM spokesman said they got access to parts of Microsoft code. Something I believe is very unlikely given the IBM's purpose. And on the contrary Microsoft denies any involvement.
Not that I don't hope it would be true...

Re:Hoax? (4, Interesting)

dreamchaser (49529) | more than 10 years ago | (#8285780)

IBM and MS still have some extensive cross licsensing agreements, so it would not surprise me one bit if they had access to some of the Office codebase.

Re:Hoax? (4, Interesting)

__past__ (542467) | more than 10 years ago | (#8285831)

It would be surprising if they had a license to redistribute a modified version of it, though.

Well, we'll see. If IBM really has such plans, they will surely not keep them a secret.

Re:Hoax? (4, Interesting)

donutz (195717) | more than 10 years ago | (#8285786)

I'm seriously questioning the validity of this article.

Actually, it sounds more to me like you've got a native English-speaking reporter interviewing a non-native English speaker (an IBM-er in Sweden). So I think what it boils down to is a failure to communicate.

So what's really going on here? Who knows! Maybe MS did provide some Office code that IBM is using to achieve greater compatibility in WINE. Or what if IBM was re-writing Office in Java (yeah, that's a real long shot).

Re:Hoax? (1)

shfted! (600189) | more than 10 years ago | (#8285835)

Mostly Swedes have passable to excellent English skills. Given that it's a technology related position, chances of having good English skills are very high.

well.... (4, Funny)

xao gypsie (641755) | more than 10 years ago | (#8285740)

they certainly wouldn't need to do it by emulation should there be another source leak....*cough*

gnu millennium kode becoming fashionable? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8285744)

also quite affordable, & not subject to fraudulent payper liesense corepirate nazi softwar gangster hostage/stock markup scams.

Will Microsoft Sabotage? (5, Interesting)

Dr Reducto (665121) | more than 10 years ago | (#8285748)

Will Microsoft try to sabotage this by "upgrading" Office in future versions to things that are difficult to "emulate" or include a clause in the EULA that says "You may not run this with a compatibility wrapper" or Linux or anything else? I could see this happening.

Re:Will Microsoft Sabotage? (5, Interesting)

IANAAC (692242) | more than 10 years ago | (#8285858)

They already have... Try installing Microsoft Office 2003 on Codeweavers' Crossover Office. Immediately comes up with "You need a newer version of your OS" (or something similar).

Emulation (4, Interesting)

ezh (707373) | more than 10 years ago | (#8285749)

IBM tried to emulate Win16 application compatibility with its OS/2. As a result, nobody cared developing application of OS/2 as such. IMHO, emulation is a dead-end branch of development in this case.

For some reason (probably licensing issues with Sun) or compatibility with the rest of MS office document base, IBM does not want to develop OpenOffice or Corel WordPerfect Suit. I am just wondering - have they given up on their Lotus completely then?

Re:Emulation (1)

Catbeller (118204) | more than 10 years ago | (#8285808)

It wouldn't be an issue with licensing StarOffice from Sun. OpenOffice is not owned by Sun, of course, being open source software; StarOffice is a derivative of OpenOffice. Anyone can use OpenOffice.

Re:Emulation (1)

amitti (210015) | more than 10 years ago | (#8285834)

I was under the impression that IBM had some right to use the Win16 architecture because they origionally consulted Microsoft to develop Windows for them. I don't really know, I just figured that was why they only supported Win16 when Win32 was just starting to become the next big thing at the time..

I still have a few boxes of OS/2 in my basement, lol.. I have a few copies of Word 2.0 if anyone's interested also, can be used to make great comparison reviews with OpenOffice! Office is a good application, I'm afraid java just blows. I've been using Abiword and Gnumeric for some time, I'm fairly happy.

-Aaron Mitti

I hope they don't.... (3, Insightful)

rongage (237813) | more than 10 years ago | (#8285753)

I hope they DON'T go the "emulation" route - i.e. WINE [winehq.com]

While WINE is a nice attempt to make a Win32 compatability layer, it is just too flakey to be used in a day-to-day business sense. IBM has used WINE before for providing Linux apps - HomePage Builder comes to mind immediately - and it was NEVER stable. Display problems, startup flakeness, and just general unstableness made the product truely painful to use.

If they want to do it right - and impress people at the same time, they should make a NATIVE APP

Re:I hope they don't.... (4, Funny)

0x0d0a (568518) | more than 10 years ago | (#8285813)

I have to agree. WINE is cool, but not a solution for the general public. I don't think it ever will be, just by nature of the project.

Of course, if they do a native release, then they have several widget sets to choose from:

1) GTK/GNOME -- piss off the KDE adherents.

2) Qt/KDE -- piss off the GNOME adherents.

3) Proprietary a la OpenOffice -- piss off everyone and have graphical glitches and be slow.

Why could IBM do better than OpenOffice.org (4, Insightful)

hillct (230132) | more than 10 years ago | (#8285755)

If Microsoft is not involved and is not providing any source code or detailed internal specs, the only reason IBM could provide a superior office suite to that offered by OpenOffice.org is a simple resourcing issue. IBM has a great deal of money and programming expertise to throw at such an effort. With this in mind, why wouldn't IBM simply become a greater contributor to the OpenOffice.org effort?

What could IBM achieve on it's own that they could not achieve in colaboration with OpenOffice.org? This whole effort seems rather strange and somewhat poorly thought out.

--CTH

Re:Why could IBM do better than OpenOffice.org (4, Insightful)

ajagci (737734) | more than 10 years ago | (#8285873)

OpenOffice is enormously useful right now, and bigger contributions from IBM would be great. But I think in the long term, OpenOffice is a lost cause because it is too much like Microsoft Office is today: a bloated, monolithic piece of software written in C/C++. Microsoft will be changing MS Office over the next few years, by rewriting large chunks of it in C#/CLR and modularizing it more. That will greatly ease their software engineering problems that they are having with their Office software today.

OpenOffice will need to make a similar transition. But that won't be happening within the existing OpenOffice framework: OpenOffice simply doesn't have the resources or will for such a radical and quick transition. Instead, it will have to be a newly designed office suite based on Mono and Gtk#. That is what IBM should really be investing in.

Re:Why could IBM do better than OpenOffice.org (1)

foobsr (693224) | more than 10 years ago | (#8285891)

What could IBM achieve on it's own that they could not achieve in colaboration with OpenOffice.org?

C_O_N_T_R_O_L

CC.

Re:Why could IBM do better than OpenOffice.org (1)

El_Ge_Ex (218107) | more than 10 years ago | (#8285929)

What could IBM achieve on it's own that they could not achieve in colaboration with OpenOffice.org?

Simple: Shafting Sun up the ....

(you get the idea).

-B

Hello (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8285756)

It looks like you are trying to build your kernel, would you like me to help?

This is huge (1)

spanielrage (250784) | more than 10 years ago | (#8285767)

The /. community should be rallying behind this. IBM tends to deliver and it's becoming more apparent than they see an IT world without Microsoft.

Revenge can be sweet (OS/2).

finally (0)

Digitus1337 (671442) | more than 10 years ago | (#8285771)

A big name has seen what linux has to offer. It doesn't cost them anything and people are willing to accept it, or even want it. Why pay for windows on a machine that will just be formatted once the customer gets his hands on it. On the other hand, if they want it, they can put it on themselves, and less problems arise. It's win/win.

How about Crossover Office (5, Interesting)

RaeF (120232) | more than 10 years ago | (#8285774)

How about Crossover Office [codeweavers.com] by CodeWeavers. You can run the full Office suite including Outlook and Access. It works VERY VERY well. Better than running on Windows actually.

Crossover Office just works (5, Informative)

bender647 (705126) | more than 10 years ago | (#8285819)

Crossover Office has been great for me on my laptop. I work at a plant with 1000 Microsoft users and they can't write a five-word meeting notice without putting it in a Word document. For the sub-$60 license fee, it has been worth every penny. I keep Star Office going on my Sun and Ooffice on my desktop linux system, but more often than not, they can't properly open MS documents. Yes, it would be great if I could convince a billion dollar company to convert all its employees to Ooffice, and convince all our vendors and customers to convert, and convince all the technical organizations to use Ooffice presentation software at the conferences. But instead, I just paid the $60 and got back to work.

Re:Crossover Office just works (5, Informative)

zeeboy (599698) | more than 10 years ago | (#8285898)

Hi,

Have you tried OpenOffice 1.1? I find it hard to believe ( note: I'm not calling you a liar :> ) that less than half of the word documents won't open correctly. I work in an organisation where everybody uses Office. They mostly create overly formatted Word documents or formula spreadsheets and I have yet to have a single problem opening any of them.

wineconf notes from last /. article (1)

gad_zuki! (70830) | more than 10 years ago | (#8285925)

What of the recent announcement that office 'just works' under WINE? I tried the newest version of wine and office certainly doesn't work, but if the report from wineconf is true then the 60 dollar codeweaver software might go the way of the dodo and give IBM a headstart into doing this.

funny quote (2, Interesting)

manifest37 (632701) | more than 10 years ago | (#8285782)

"It suits us fine the Microsoft and Sun fight about office application suites. We stay away from that. The reason we don't collaborate with Sun is that they're too small," said Pettersson.

Wonderful! Give MS Office a Chance! (2, Interesting)

yanestra (526590) | more than 10 years ago | (#8285784)

Of course, Linux desires some other environmentally needed tools too, like Outlook (Express) (needed so badly - still no viruses under Linux!), MS Scripting Host (invaluable for executing virus scripts, dialer and spyware pages and so on), the whole broken framework of object interferences and misguided authorizations is missing under Linux.

Without that, the whole Office software couldn't be properly integrated.

To make Linux inferior and totally broken we need it! Port it to Linux! Finish your work, IBM, buy SCO and be friends again with Microsoft!

Dinosaurs (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8285787)

The reason we don't collaborate with Sun is that they're too small," said Pettersson.

Dinosaurs are large.
And they don't collaborate with other animals because they are smaller.
That's why they don't exist anymore.

Blue Linux (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8285789)

Yeah, this is great news and it only proves that IBM's in it for real. IBM is also creating a _desktop_ version of Linux - Blue Linux. It's not out yet, but PC Magazine's John Dvorak has already seen it.

HERE's [pcmag.com] the PC magazine article about it.

Re:Blue Linux (2, Insightful)

0x0d0a (568518) | more than 10 years ago | (#8285799)

John Dvorak is roughly equivalent to a Slashdot troll in both accuracy of his analyses and his attempts to produce controversy.

Re:Blue Linux (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8285827)

True, but he's still interesting. I kind of miss his old talk show on ZDTV, now known as TechTV.

And Let The Screaming Begin... (4, Insightful)

The Spie (206914) | more than 10 years ago | (#8285790)

Oh, how many posts are now being composed in how many minds that state that IBM has now betrayed the FOSS Movement by not acknowledging the greatness of OpenOffice? How dare they!?

Come on, people, calm down. If IBM is doing this, they're acknowledging what everyone without ideological blinders admits: until OpenOffice can write a file that's 100% compatible with its Office equivalent, it won't make any headway. MS is too entrenched at this point. I can hear those same people as above screaming about Linux, but it's also a different battleground being fought in the office suite theater than in the desktop OS one. It's a hearts, minds, and heads battle rather than an economic one (which is the only argument that has been proven effective on non-tech types when it comes to converting systems to Linux). We've all heard the stories about the intransigent secretaries. That's where the fight will take place, and it's going to be a much harder battle that needs a much more polished product.

I'm hoping that IBM realizes that it owns Lotus and uses that particular brand for this effort. It still has some cachet in corporate circles.

sourcecode please? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8285821)

Can someone who has the sourcecode to MS Office please post it on the internet? Thanks.

Probably WINE (3, Informative)

mark0 (750639) | more than 10 years ago | (#8285822)

IBM already offers Lotus Notes to its employees using Linux via WINE -- available for download by employees as part of its C4EB (Client for e-Business). They call it NUL (Notes Under Linux).

I have no special knowledge to substantiate this, but I expect they would take the same approach to accomplish this; it would certainly fit the pattern. In the end, we could see a substantially improved WINE as a result.

Re:Probably WINE (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8285876)

If they (IBM) are indeed so dedicated to Linux, maybe they should make Lotus Notes native client for Linux first? I think this (MS Office on Linux) is just another cheap popularity stunt.

Sauce for the gander. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8285850)

Embrace, Extend, ...

Anyone else notice... (2, Funny)

}InFuZeD{ (52430) | more than 10 years ago | (#8285854)

These IBM and Microsoft Reps must come pre-made or something... Petterson... Perrson... come on, too many similarities there. They must buy from the same company.

The left hand doesn't know what the right.... (4, Informative)

SmileeTiger (312547) | more than 10 years ago | (#8285868)

I can't believe no one has pointed this out yet:

From the article:
"Microsoft said it's not involved and suggests that IBM might do it by emulation."

IBM:"..But we're working together with Microsoft, who have provided us with part of their code. We've worked together like that previously."

So Microsoft isn't working with IBM but IBM is working with Microsoft because MS has provided them with part of their code. Hmm does MS have split personalities or something?

conspiracy anyone? (1)

twoslice (457793) | more than 10 years ago | (#8285881)

MS source code leaked, soon after IBM says Eureeka! and anounces MS Office suite on Linux

patiently waiting for more Eureekas...

Crossover Office (3, Informative)

chrysalis (50680) | more than 10 years ago | (#8285889)

Have a look at Codeweavers Crossover Office.

It's a commercial Wine derivative that allows running a lot of Windows apps, including the full Microsoft Office suite.

And Office works extremely well. In fact... even better than Openoffice. Startup time is shorter than Openoffice. Rendering is good and fast. Compatibility is of course perfect.

big deal (3, Insightful)

dookie (136297) | more than 10 years ago | (#8285893)

Note that the article is saying that IBM wants to migrate Office to Linux. Not "give away for free". We'd still be paying monopolistic prices for it.

Non-technical people should stay silent... (3, Insightful)

NoMoreNicksLeft (516230) | more than 10 years ago | (#8285904)

This is actually possible, using so-called emulation. Companies such as U.S.-based Codeweavers offer such products. But this will not give you applications that are actually compiled for Linux.

Stefan Pettersson, technical manager for IBM's Lotus division in Sweden, said that there will be a Java client of Lotus Notes some time during the second half of 2004. This means that the first "native" Notes client to run under Linux will soon be available.

How exactly is that "native? I'm sorry, but a java version is only native to that weird Sun java cpu that never made it out of production... it's nothing more than emulation for a machine that doesn't actually exist.

This is simple... (3, Insightful)

Linux Thought Leader (747952) | more than 10 years ago | (#8285912)

The more software that can run on Linux, no matter the pedigree, implementation or emulation, the better.
What keeps you from foisting a Linux Desktop on the secretary isn't her ability to figure out the interface. Hell, my mom handles BlueCurve on a RedHat box like no one's business. The secretary needs an Office suite that opens Office docs and spreadsheets.
I love OpenOffice. I am writing my dissertation with it. But until OOrg can really open and manage Office file formats (including Macros in spreadsheets) then it will just be ours, not theirs.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...