Discussion on:

Microsoft Office to Linux: Outlook doubtful

Office 365. Why make a native port when you can simply point these users at the browser based experience at no additional cost.

"Windows 7, Windows 8, Windows Server 2008 R2 with .NET 3.5 or later."

Additional Requirements are also heavy on MS exclusives.

re-read all the articles about "not moving to W8" - "too expensive" "if it (XP) ain't broke", etc. Now, regard all the existing Linux desktops that have LibreOffice for free and which works with minor effort according to this article - how many of them will pay for MSO ?

"Microsoft Office to Linux: Outlook doubtful"

But then, it's easy to Excel at puns when you have Access to so many one-Word product names. If Jack could think of a pun on PowerPoint, though, then he'd really be in the Groove. That would make the FrontPage of Reddit, fer sure.

MS isn't that crazy.

MS isn't going to die either, they may just shift to other markets.

The Apple version of Office hasn't killed Windows. Why would a version for Linux?

However a comparable Apple computer costs way more than a Windows computer, a comparable Linux computer costs less.

This triggered two thoughts.

First is that those people for whom hardware costs are an issue aren't going to be likely to spend money on Office anyway, especially with the free OpenOffice forks available. A large segment of the open source community refuses to pay for software under any conditions, as Jack acknowledges in his article.

Second, both Windows and Apple systems come with the OS pre-installed. I still think having to build a system from scratch is a task the average user finds intimidating.

Clearly, the second point wouldn't be a problem in a corporate environment, and I think that's the potential market for any still-vaporous 'Office for Linux' product. Should W8 result in a large segment of the business market migrating to Linux (a doubtful proposition), MS would be ready.

All you have to do is install it. In fact, most people who go with Linux get one of their friends who are versed in it to put the machine together and install it because... well... those people are tinkerers who aren't satisfied with the "one ring to rule them all" cookie cutter Windows is. Also, you can re-tool that old computer that you thought had run the course of its effective life by installing Linux on it.

I'm not a really a Microsoft hater, per se. I simply try to avoid their products at all costs. Nothing personal, I just got tired of the problems with the software around the turn of the century, and haven't looked back. I have one computer (a laptop) with XP on it, and that issue will be rectified as soon as Microsoft stop supporting that version.

So the build out process is usually done by people who love to do it anyway (if not re-tooling an older computer). Couple that with the fact that you no longer HAVE to use the command line in Linux, its simply plug and play, like Windows. Now you have a system that is more powerful, more secure, and more user friendly that can give Windows a run for its money. The place to send someone would be Ubuntu, as it is designed with the end user instead of the programmer in mind. And with Ubuntu coming out with a mobile version as well (not to mention Android's new market dominance), you have Linux poised to make a surge in the next decade.

Linux runs on on machines which cannot run windows 7 or higher. MS would sell Office for those machines, but less pc's would be bought (windows licenses) because the lifetime of older machines would increase....I bet Intel wouldn't be too pleased either.

While Linux will install on hardware that won't run W7, a Linux release of Office probably won't be lean and mean. I can get W7 and Office 2010 on some older systems, but they run like frozen molasses. A fat app is a fat app, regardless of OS.

are too minimalistic for the average user.
From my personal experience, Ubuntu is about 10x heavier then Windows 7, let alone Windows 8.
Having a custom build Linux-from-scratch is not very widespread in end-user markets. I like Debian

You do realise that when you install Ubuntu, you are also installing the core OS, XWindows, Unity and all the other tools and applications that make a Linux system usable right out of the box. You dont even have to install LibreOffice separately as it is installed straight away. How about you do a install of a Windows 7 system with all the same tools and apps and then do the compare. I think that you will find that a Linux system, while still heavy, comes out lighter than Windows. That being said, I am going to be investigating quite heavily in a move away from Linux for my laptop and desktop machines. If I can find an alternative system to Ubuntu (I havent liked it since they moved away from Gnome/KDE to Unity) that I like, then I will definitely be making the move.

Also, MS had already lost those sales of Windows, so it made sense to add office.

I guess the same would work for Linux, if MS was losing or already lost people from Windows, then making a Linux version of office could save them. But only if that situation ever happens. If they released it early, it could cause migrations away from Windows. Those that haven't moved up to Windows 8 might consider Linux as an alternative.

It might be smart for MS to secretly develop a linux version of office, and then just hold it in reserve just in case Linux starts to dominate.

MS usually takes the safe road, they rarely take risks (and usually give up too soon).

Some of you youngesters may not be aware, but the first GUI version of MS Word, and the first versions of Excel were Mac only. So there is a long history there. The publishing of Office for the Mac was also part of the committment that Gates gave to Jobs when the lawsuits ended and Gates helped keep Apple from going under.

Interoperability also helps, if there is no Office for Mac, then OpenOffice can claim cross platform, and MS can't.

Have you watched the Windows Mobile platform? Tablets? MS has been dumping money into those platforms for years with low market share.

Bill

And it keeps growing.

Off the top of my head
WPF
Zune
DirectX10
Windows tablets

WPF is still used.
DirectX 10 depends on your definition of "dead".
Windows tablets? Do you mean those that had a pen? Its ancient tech, sure it would be dead. If you're talking about Windows 8 tablets I barely can see how it's dead.

Of course Microsoft would have many dead tech, It's a giant software company developing a lot of stuff. Just like any other big company that have R&D departments.

WPF was announced that it has ended, now they focus on metro apps. They didn't even finish WPF it doesn't even have a proper folder tree viewer.
Silverlight is abandoned.

Those old tablets were abandoned by MS after poor sales.
DX10 was abandoned with Vista, that really pissed off gamers. MS made them upgrade to Vista for DX10, then made them do it again for DX11. (Sort of shows Vista as abandoned as well, but no one seems upset about that)

Now, before you say they do that to every OS.
Windows 95 was good until DirectX 8, Windows 98 supports DX9.

Oh, Windows phone 7, abandoned.

MS has a bad habit of abandoning anything that doesn't have good sales. Xbox is as far as I know, the only exception.
And devs know this, that's why there aren't that many apps developed for each new platform MS comes up with.

Silverlight hasn't been abandoned, the leaked roadmap pointed to a Silverlight 6 in 2014.

Also, WP7 wasn't "abandoned". They got 7.8, for starters. And, according to Nokia, there will be updates after that one as well. They were not abandoned.

Go buy a Windows phone 7 then, find one, get support, and download a bunch of apps for it. Tell us all how not abandoned it is.

Until the Surface series, Microsoft didn't make tablets. Hardware vendors made tablets with XP Tablet pre-installed.

I withdraw the statement.

"...and then just hold it in reserve just in case Linux starts to dominate."

I just assume they already have one, for at least that one reason. See Red_One's 'Am I crazy" comment below.

My Machiavellian side thinks that if MS were to stop developing Office for Mac and throw their weight behind Linux they would significantly hurt Apple sales and benefit their vendors like Dell, HP and Lenovo greatly.

And I see nothing wrong with hurting Apple. MS is evil to be certain, but Apple is beyond evil, they are like the Kefka of evil, they would burn towns and kill millions just for a good laugh.

Two different things. Apple has had its own hardware that whole time. The competition is not the same. Linux will compete directly with MS Windows for space on all the other hardware if that port happened.

sucks.

and Apple has done a really pathetic effort in their "iWorks", makes you Mac fit together like bread crumbles. You have a silly email client, a pathetic text processor that does not hang together, does not even integrate with their Address Book app, and iChat. On top of that, instead of using open document formats - they make their own variants.

So NeoOffice, or an old OpenOffice compiled and linked for MacOS is vastly better, even LibreOffice is better. Steve Jobs have made a good effort in trying to make us draw letters, and the presentations once they are made on the Mac - are really impressive, with iTunes music and movie content available. But heck: Who on my board of director would care? Well, the boardroom is in a protected room, where wireless Internet is limited - do forget text that is not on the laptop - on some "iCloud".

For thinking that once you get it working on BSD (OSX) a port to Linux (or BSD?) would be trivial for a company the size of Microsoft?

One of MSs mistakes (IMO) was not to make earlier versions of Office available at a discount. People who couldnt afford (or simply didnt like) the latest version have never had a legitimate way of getting an earlier one that might better suit their needs, so they went to fleabay or blagged a work copy. Law of unintended consequences (and I still like Office 2000 best).

I have been working supporting IT for about 40 years and in all the customers I had:
Birmingham careers service, Barclays Bank, Nat West Bank, Anderson Consulting (as it was then) LLoyds Bank, British Shoe Corporation, selfridges Northern Trust, Coventry City Council, Birmingham City Council, The Sears Group etc etc etc didn't use a Micky Mouse product like Microsoft Outlook. When you talk about businesses I suspect you are talking about Mr Bun the baker, Ann's Florist, Spud U Like etc. Hardly the sort of companies to worry about small fry like them will always stick to a PC from Pcworld and Microsoft products, as they are only happy with products they know and that their teenage kids can support for free. Talk to them about leveraging their existing infrastucture by supernetting two contiguous class 'C' IP addresses together and see what looks you get :-P

"...all the customers I had ...didn't use a Micky Mouse product like Microsoft Outlook."

Disregarding the fact that there's more to Office than just Outlook, what did all those outfits use for e-mail over the last ten or fifteen years?

We use Outlook, and we aren't on your list of employers.
Bit strange that, based on your argument I'd have thought the UKs and one of the world's largest IT firms would have been on there...

By the way how do you use Outlook to supernet two class C addresses?

no text

Dear Microsoft Office,
We don't need you.
Sincerely,
Linux

Seriously though,
Great article. I can't imagine any business that has made the switch to Linux not having thought out the issue of Office type apps ahead of time, so I doubt there is a huge market there. The truth is, with each new version, Office gets bigger, bulkier, and slower. Prettier, yes, but often the new interface is frustrating and takes weeks to get used to.
I would also point out that Google for Business will work fine on Linux, or any platform for that matter.
Great article Jack!

Dear Linux,
That is because you live in your mom's basement. Now wipe your nose and get back in the server room.
Sincerely,
The rest of the world.

JK. I have been using Linux for 12 years.

Seriously. If anything it will be ported to Android. Android actually has the potential to be a threat to Windows. However it took Google engineering to get Linux ready for prime time.

Thanks for making me laugh..I'm voting + on your comment.

There have been quite a few companies who have helped Linux along the way. Even Microsoft and Apple have helped along the way. Google has brought it the furthest, though. Would that they would move to developing Android for the Desktop, with the full power of Gnu/Linux (or their own software built on top of Linux in place of Gnu).

I believe with Ubuntu, Linux is at the cusp of "Prime Time". Ubuntu look to be moving towards leveraging the entire market with their products. Time will tell what happens, but they look to be on the cusp of greatness.

Apple (that I use most) has no competing "Office Suite" - they have "skinned" an old version of Open Office, and made no effort to integrate anything. I cannot email from "Pages" - like I can in Word, I cannot the address book in Mail, just pick email addresses from it... so that sucks.
But on Linux there are tons of "Integration scripts" and patches that allows LibreOffice to access my Contacts and appointments in Thunderbird or Evolution or SeaMonkey or whatever. These are documented, source available, and a competent consultant can make the changes I need. Except for one:
I run MS Office here in Wine (Excellent Windows emulator) - but this still stores in MS native files, that are limited to the 32 bit FAT. I have 30+GB of emails on my laptop, and need to search what was done 8 years ago on a similar project, so archiving is impossible. MS also need full 64bit repositories for emails and documents and drawings and media, and what is easier than to can Win8 and move to Linux, say Mint? Then they have aqcuired Skype that needs the full tcp/ip stack, they have invested in commercial channels, and can end their venture into acquiring operating systems. bear in mind, none of the OS they sell have been developed from scratch by them ( ok maybe Windows 3.1). They don't have to pay for Linux, Steve Ballmer loves freebies. What they should fear is that someone, like Canonical comes up with a real killer solution - better than Unify, maybe in conjunction with the Linux variant "Android" that is spreading like wildfire.

Although the article is right on a most counts, it's missing a few key points. I support computers and networks because I'm good at it. I assumed that everyone that supported them was as good. I found out that's not true. By a long shot. Then I thought, "If these people that are supposed to be specialized in their field flummoxed by something I consider 'easy', how does the AVERAGE user react?"

I found out the answer was, "Not well." This is where Mr. Wallen falls into a trap. Sure, WE think that changing from Office to LibreOffice to Lotus SmartSuite to whatever is a breeze, and it is. Like cars, they're designed so that getting out of one and into another is pretty much the same experience, except for the small details and certain features that define one particular platform. Your 'typical' support tech, and the office 'power user' is going to need more than a few minutes, finding out where all the knobs and buttons are, and testing the features to see how they may work differently, but they're going to learn it eventually. Now the 'average' user, they're going to react as if they've been dropped into a Hungarian-made car that's made Right Hand Drive for the UK, and they'll FREAK. Support and training costs will sky-rocket. I've witnessed this first-hand. So the typical network admin, and his financial overlords, will figure that the extra cost of ~$150 per PC will be completely justifiable, and they'd be right.

Now, if you could only give that same office admin a Linux version that does file access like Windows and MS Office? THAT would be a reason to make them look twice...

(And I'm serious. One portion of the changeover I witnessed was changing from using Banyan Vines Email to MS Outlook. The 'paper airplane' button was changed to the 'Send' button, and 80% of the users had trouble with that concept...)

I still use Windows XP and Office 2003, and the main reason I will be switching to Linux when Windows XP no longer works is that current versions of Office are worse than MSO 2003; the replacement of the heirarchical menu tree with the ribbon system was a step backward for productivity, and there is no reason to believe that MS won't continue to regularly create new versions of MSO that don't work properly, instead of fixing MSO once and for all.

My big concern has always been that Linux developers keep trying to imitate Microsoft by bloating their offerings with eye candy and features few people really need, instead of concentrating on making their offerings more useful, reliable and secure. You can't solve a problem by copying it.