Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Microsoft Looking At Office For Linux In 2014

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

  • curaga
    replied
    Originally posted by timothyja View Post
    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.
    OK; let's say instead that whatever sharing exists is poor and mostly ancient. Better?

    Leave a comment:


  • Tinuva
    replied
    Originally posted by locovaca View Post
    There's never been an IE for Linux. There was, however, IE for Unix.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Explorer_for_UNIX
    Thank you, I remember something vaguely like that, at least your url clears it up

    Leave a comment:


  • timothyja
    replied
    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, 11:06 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Larian
    replied
    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!

    Leave a comment:


  • Larian
    replied
    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!

    Leave a comment:


  • timothyja
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • timothyja
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • curaga
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Agross
    replied
    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!

    Leave a comment:


  • locovaca
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X