Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Microsoft Looking At Office For Linux In 2014

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by timothyja View Post
    Rubbish. The core code would have been reused and only the GUI would have been written from scratch.
    Who knows, maybe they're going for WINELIB.

    Comment


    • #32
      Native or not, this doesn't change anything to the fundamental problem: in the facts non-open-standard-based document formats owned by a commercial company. Whether they port their suite or not, still a big no-no.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by BO$$ View Post
        What exactly was I generalizing?
        You are hilarious. You really need to ask?

        Originally posted by BO$$ View Post
        And no it won't be open sourced but only zealots care about that. The rest want to use office and would gladly to that on linux if it were available.
        1. "but only zealots care about that" really? Are the crazy aluminium foil hat wearing people really the only ones who care about open source? I didnt know everything was so simple. hmmm that wouldn't have been a generalisation would it?

        2. "The rest want to use" Since we are a world of black and white and you have kindly told us what the crazies want, everyone else MUST want to do what you want to do. Wherefore art thou Generalisations?

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by t0ken View Post
          Exactly. I'd welcome a Linux port of MS Office. If it sucks, hey I still have LibreOffice. I love having CHOICE to use whatever fits my needs, not what someone else thinks I should use.
          Yes, more choice is good. As long as it doesn't kill LibreOffice, it's fine. But beware of vendor lock-in and all the embrace extend extinguish practices Microsoft's follows whenever they can. That includes their own OOXML (internal memory dump) "standard" they got approved through bribery and corruption, only to kill ODF, but to which they never intended to comply: "get this approved and just move on" said at Microsoft.
          Last edited by newwen; 02-06-2013, 07:02 AM.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by BO$$ View Post
            But I do fear Richard Stallman jumping on this and his army of idiots following him to do whatever is necessary to thwart Microsoft's plans.
            I think you can't even spell the word "Philosopher" hey do a reality check RMS do have a wikipedia page you don't have a wikipedia page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman

            Your babbling is just SPAM without any relevance.

            I'm sure RMS beat you in any tropic in a nano-second.

            but go one write bullshit no one will ever try to stop you.

            Comment


            • #36
              Linux has already won the battle for the Desktop. I have been saying this for the last 3-4 years. It is clear to all of us who follow the trends of technology.

              It may not be clearly visible NOW, but it is inevitable that Linux will become the defacto OS for desktops a few years in the future. Microsoft can't compete. It was clearly demonstrated when they spent so much money in Vista and they still released a crappy product no one wanted. They cannot keep the pace, they need more and more money to provide some noticable improvement while the no cost alternative keeps getting better and better. The truth of the matter is that there is no need for Windows anymore. Only inertia keeps them in their position for the time being.

              Seriously, what was so much improved in Vista, 7, and 8? After 12 years since XP, what is the real progress? 7 only tweaked the window manager a bit and 8 replaced the Start menu with a Gnome Shell-like alternative, that is all. All other improvements are so minor they are not even worth mentioning. Other "improvements" between versions are artificial, for example no IE 10 for Vista etc...

              So Microsoft will do the smart thing, and embrace Linux and GNU, instead of hopelessly fighting it. They can make much money through Office and .Net if they are smart. Windows is a dead horse, it is to their best interest to let it fade away. But this will happen gradually. It will be a slow process, but this is how things will turn out in the end.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by BO$$ View Post
                One of the reasons of poor linux adoption was that it didn't support office. Now maybe, hopefully, it will. If you consider this to be bad just because it won't be open source then you are a zealot. No generalization. Just defining the term. Thus I defined a way to spot a zealot. He's against office on linux. Office on linux will be good for both microsoft and linux. But I do fear Richard Stallman jumping on this and his army of idiots following him to do whatever is necessary to thwart Microsoft's plans.
                Irrelevant to the subject, but you wrote:
                (if "consider this to be bad" then "zealot") Thus ("zealot" is "against office on linux")
                , or, in simpler for
                (A => B) => (A = B)
                , which is awfully wrong.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Tinuva View Post
                  Actually that have been done before in the past, there was a IE 4 Linux version 1.0 or something, but as quickly as it appeared, it disappeared again. Sadly I can't find a link now but it was there a few years ago.
                  There's never been an IE for Linux. There was, however, IE for Unix.

                  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Explorer_for_UNIX

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Yeah, this morning I opened the window to get some fresh air and I almost got smacked by a low-flying pig ...
                    Fucking Office, get Bill Gates in here!

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by timothyja View Post
                      Rubbish. The core code would have been reused and only the GUI would have been written from scratch.

                      If your going to make such clearly wild claims please at least attempt to provide some evidence.
                      They are not wild claims, they are common knowledge for everyone who's used Office for Mac.

                      It has incompatibilities with Windows office using the exact same doc format both are supposed to fully support - how do you explain that if the common code, ie format support, is shared?

                      Updates for it take much longer, sometimes years longer, than those for w32 office.


                      Have some links in addition:
                      http://antonym.org/2006/08/ms-office...l-updated.html
                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microso...Mac_since_1995

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by curaga View Post
                        They are not wild claims, they are common knowledge for everyone who's used Office for Mac.

                        It has incompatibilities with Windows office using the exact same doc format both are supposed to fully support - how do you explain that if the common code, ie format support, is shared?

                        Updates for it take much longer, sometimes years longer, than those for w32 office.


                        Have some links in addition:
                        http://antonym.org/2006/08/ms-office...l-updated.html
                        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microso...Mac_since_1995
                        None of this supports your claim office for Mac was written from scratch. There are incompatibilies between different versions on windows this does not mean they do not share code bases. Also just because VB is not supported in mac also does not mean the do not share code bases.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by BO$$ View Post
                          One of the reasons of poor linux adoption was that it didn't support office. Now maybe, hopefully, it will. If you consider this to be bad just because it won't be open source then you are a zealot. No generalization. Just defining the term. Thus I defined a way to spot a zealot. He's against office on linux. Office on linux will be good for both microsoft and linux. But I do fear Richard Stallman jumping on this and his army of idiots following him to do whatever is necessary to thwart Microsoft's plans.
                          "Thus I defined a way to spot a zealot" you mean to make a generalisation.

                          If you have not noticed. No one is calling for open source office you are just trolling once again. I tend to think office for linux will be a good thing for the platform but that doesnt mean everyone one that doesnt is an open source zealot as you would like to say. The main issue with office is not that its not open source, but that it doesnt support open standards. This forces you to use office to access your own documents which should be your property and should not have such restrictions. If office were to stop being made in ten or twenty years time there may be no way for you to access your documents.

                          Finally since you love the term zealot so much I would like to inform you that you yourself are a zealot. Thats right on your self proclaimed war on open source fans you seem to be a fully blown closed source zealot, which brings anyone to the logical question of why you are a member of these forums? Why you follow the Phoronix blog? And why you even use linux? I still think that you are just a microsoft fanboy who doesnt acctually use linux and just trolls these forums.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by necro-lover View Post
                            I think you can't even spell the word "Philosopher" hey do a reality check RMS do have a wikipedia page you don't have a wikipedia page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman

                            Your babbling is just SPAM without any relevance.

                            I'm sure RMS beat you in any tropic in a nano-second.

                            but go one write bullshit no one will ever try to stop you.
                            OMFG! Did you really just rip on someone and call their ability to spell into question? And then commit the Appeal to Authority fallacy in the same sentence where you made fun of someone's philosophical bonifides?

                            Fucking comic gold!

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by erendorn View Post
                              Irrelevant to the subject, but you wrote:
                              (if "consider this to be bad" then "zealot") Thus ("zealot" is "against office on linux")
                              , or, in simpler for
                              (A => B) => (A = B)
                              , which is awfully wrong.
                              Not quite correct.

                              If A, then B. But A != B. A is a sufficient condition for B, but they are not equivalent. If A = B, as you suggest, then B would be a sufficient condition for A as well, but this would be affirming the consequent - a fallacy.

                              If A, then B.
                              B.
                              Therefore, A.

                              That's a no-no, but it's an honest mistake. Either way, it's not what he was actually saying. He was just defining the term with an example.

                              Cheers!

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by BO$$ View Post
                                What I do notice in the linux world and it pisses me off is this attitude that everything that is not open source is somehow evil.
                                Lol, there is no end to the entertainment you provide. Is this really so surprising that it actually pisses you off? The linux world is where the core operating system, application frameworks, and majority of applications are open source and where the developers and majority of users all subscribe to open computing philosophy's. Yet while reading the forum of a website that is dedicated to following open source operating systems, you are actually getting pissed of that people want more projects to become open source?
                                What makes me almost fall off my chair in hysterics is that you continually claim to be pragmatic yet you seem unable to make any of these observations on your own. If you were truly pragmatic you would just accept this is the way the majority of people think in the linux world and move on.

                                But no fact is you are just a troll here to get in the way of passionate people who are trying to have informative discussions about their operating system of choice. How about just trying to make a constructive comment in these forums, come on just once?
                                Last edited by timothyja; 02-06-2013, 10:06 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X