Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Microsoft Looking At Office For Linux In 2014

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

  • #21
    Originally posted by BO$$ View Post
    It would be a fabulous move from Microsoft that would help both them and linux to gain even more market share. 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.
    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.

    Comment


    • #22
      What's next, Internet Explorer for Linux?

      Comment


      • #23
        Originally posted by leif81 View Post
        What's next, Internet Explorer for Linux?
        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.

        Comment


        • #24
          Originally posted by porkbutt View Post
          Besides, Microsoft has numerous documented incompatibilities between Office files saved in the 32 and 64 bit versions, is it any wonder that other people can't properly support Microsoft's formats when Microsoft can't even support their own with the source code right in front of them? I'd have low expectations for the Linux port based on this.
          I might agree with you IF they hadn't decided to switch over to the strict version of OOXML with Office 2013. You know the one that's actually their ISO standard rather than their lolStandardsWereGoingToUseExtensions one. That said I do expect to see a level of feature disparity where features are coming to Windows first.
          Last edited by Luke_Wolf; 02-06-2013, 02:39 AM.

          Comment


          • #25
            Originally posted by n3wu53r View Post
            Why is it needed to write it from scratch? Did they do that for OSX?
            Yes, they did. The OS X office is a completely different codebase from Windows Office.

            Comment


            • #26
              Originally posted by Apopas View Post
              Generalizations, is rarely a good thing.
              Comments made by BO$$ are rarely a good thing.

              Comment


              • #27
                This'll be great if it was true.

                Comment


                • #28
                  Originally posted by curaga View Post
                  Yes, they did. The OS X office is a completely different codebase from Windows Office.
                  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.
                  Last edited by timothyja; 02-06-2013, 05:14 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #29
                    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


                    • #30
                      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

                      Working...
                      X