Microsoft Looking At Office For Linux In 2014

[BO$$]

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.

Of course, you can still be a zealot and not (only) be against office in linux. But for this thread it stands if you consider office bad on linux then you are a zealot.

[BO$$]

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.

See? This type of zealot exactly. He is a very good definition for the word zealot.

Oh, and how is that hurd turd kernel coming along? Hahaha....Dude wake up! Stallman is a joke! He was relevant 30 years ago.

[locovaca]

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

[Agross]

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!

[curaga]

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

[timothyja]

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.

[timothyja]

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.

[Larian]

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!

[Larian]

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!

[BO$$]

"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.

I am pragmatic. I use whatever works best in a situation. I use both closed source and open source. 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. So this is why I was expecting that in this thread someone would jump to call microsoft not open source thus evil or somehow damaging to linux ecosystem. Fortunately that has not happened. But then again, give it some time....