7 ms·

I'm not sure I follow what the author is getting at other than "We should hate MS and do our best to not work with them on anything!". First it was "MS breaks

by tw04 7y ago

I'm not sure I follow what the author is getting at other than "We should hate MS and do our best to not work with them on anything!". First it was "MS breaks compatibility on purpose, screw those guys!". Now it's "sure, they're playing nice but they don't have a product in every market segment we want so they must have some nefarious master plan we haven't figure out yet!" Everytime I hear someone say "just look, they don't support office on Linux!" I ask: and what exactly do you think the market share is of guys who love Linux so much they use it on the desktop, but also would PAY Microsoft for Office vs. just using LibreOffice or Google's office suite? If you think MS hasn't done the math and figured out that solution would never break even much less turn a profit, I guess I'd ask anyone making that claim to show their work. I can tell you unequivocally the thing holding back the average enterprise from moving their entire business to Linux on the Desktop is NOT Microsoft Office, if it were they'd just tell everyone to use Office Online and move on with life. PS: I assume all these Linux on the Desktop guys complaining about not having Office on Linux already are subscribed to o365 and use Office Online exclusively, proving to MS there's demand. Right?

KingMachiavelli 7y ago
If Office was available for Linux, some organizations could consider deploying Linux workstations with Office since that's what most users/employees need is basically a browser (100%/users) and the Office suite (50-90%/users). Office Online is severely gimped as noted in the article and is solely to counteract adoption of Google Office.
- outside1234 7y ago
  What is a good example of it being gimped? I honestly think its better online than the apps themselves.
  - KingMachiavelli 7y ago
    In Office 365 Excel, there is no way to zoom out or in besides the browser's zoom which causes the whole UI to be scaled.
    - tracker1 7y ago
      You may want to look in their uservoice forums to see how requested that feature is, and upvote it. I've seen a few of the features I've requested and supported bear fruit from this.
  - wazanator 7y ago
    Excel is much more limited in the browser compared to the desktop app. Conditional formatting for example can not use formulas in the online version. The browser version is good but it's not at the same level as the desktop or even Google sheets yet.
  - leblancfg 7y ago
    See https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/office365/servicedescriptions/office-online-service-description/office-online-service-description#excel https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/office365/servicedescriptio... When you see a footnote next to a 'Yes' in the online version, read it as a 'No for 90% of use cases'.
- darkcha0s 7y ago
  What kind of an assumption is this. Most people need an operating system they are comfortable doing their daily work, not just a browser and a notepad. Jesus christ, not all non-devs work only in office.
  - KingMachiavelli 7y ago
    > Most people need an operating system they are comfortable doing their daily work. True, and Windows is very entrenched partly due to Office and legacy software depending on it. Chromebooks and Mac OS seem to be adopted without to much hindrance from a UI perspective. i.e How much more populate would Chromebooks be if they ran the full desktop Office suite? > not all non-devs work only in office. Certainly not all but a lot of jobs, particularly in management consist mostly of emails, meetings, spreadsheets, word documents + a few web apps. Also, lets not forget about all the jobs where the computer isn't really part of the job at all; it's just a tool to communicate (email) and for document production/consumption. These machines are basically kiosks that Microsoft has milking licenses out of for Windows + Office + 365 Storage. Some businesses can switch to Google but many rely on existing Excel spreadsheets elsewhere in their organization so there is a lot of momentum to switch away from non-desktop spreadsheet and document applications.
    - ClumsyPilot 7y ago
      I disagree with this 'legacy software's moniker, all the most productive software falls into this category. Look at the Autodesk Suite, Adobe Suite, Enterprise Architect, blender3D, Unity game engine, a traditional IDE like Jetbrains or VisualStudio. They have waay more power than the their web-based or, worse yet, electron competitors.
      - KingMachiavelli 7y ago
        I was only referring to software that's still tied to Windows out of legacy/inertia. I'm not saying all desktop applications are legacy. But It's appropriate because if those application were going to be rewritten today, there is no way they would tie them exclusively to the Win32 API. Blender, Jetbrains IDE's, and even VSCode (pretty sure Unity is multiplatform too) are all working just fine with multiplatform and aren't dependent on any particular OS. If you've ever had to deal with Autodesk like software, it's a mess of old code and poor practices. It's a nightmare getting that kind of software working for Enterprise/Educational environments. Just looking at the Enterprise Architect site brings me back to the days when software used to come on actual disks in large, book-like boxes. Yes, the software is useful and has yet to be replaced by something more modern, whether web based or at least multi-platform. But that's why it's entrenched in many businesses and Microsoft is riding on the back of that by making sure it's tied to their platform.
- Delmania 7y ago
  No, they wouldn't. What kind of claim is this? Active directory, group policy, etc. If you're running an org on Google Business, sure, but most large organizations are running AD and Windows works well with that.
excursionist 7y ago
Microsoft has historically been the single greatest enemy of Linux and Open Source in general. The only reason they now changed face and hopped on the Linux train is that they realized they lost or cannot possibly win the battle when it comes to servers, embedded devices, a large section of developers, mobile, etc. > I can tell you unequivocally the thing holding back the average enterprise from moving their entire business to Linux on the Desktop is NOT Microsoft Office It may not be office specifically, but vendor lock-in with various MS products is definitely a huge factor. Also, every single "quoted" piece of your comment is cheap strawman.
- Someone1234 7y ago
  People don't use Linux Desktop because it is bad. Constantly looking for others to blame (Microsoft, DRM, Google, Valve, Apple, etc) doesn't change that fact. The fact that Google has been able to take the Linux kernel twice and produce a better and more popular desktop experience (with Android and then Chromebook) should be a good indication of that. Linux Desktop is exclusively designed for Linux developers, it is user hostile, highly inconsistent, difficult to centrally manage, not accessible (and thus could leave employers liable to lawsuits in some countries), and buggy. Incidentally Microsoft does have a version of Office that runs on Linux: Office Online. Yet somehow nobody is quitting Windows, MacOS, and Chromebook to go Linux Desktop even for completely free. If you want Linux Desktop to be a success, maybe spend less time finding the latest scapegoat and more time helping make it a good user experience. Personally I don't think it can be fixed not because the software is beyond saving, but the community surrounding it doesn't actually want it to be an experience for regular non-technical people. Try going to a mailing list and suggesting that editing text files in /etc isn't a practical end-user experience and see what response you get.
  - pytester 7y ago
    >People don't use Linux Desktop because it is bad. There is a reason why it is not offered as an option to be preinstalled on laptops except in a few instances. That reason is not "because it is bad". The windows license is a tax on laptops. End of story. I have a dell xps 13 and even I paid it (dell's developer edition laptop is often hard to acquire for some reason).
devnonymous 7y ago
> Everytime I hear someone say "just look, they don't support office on Linux!" I ask: and what exactly do you think the market share is of guys who love Linux so much they use it on the desktop, but also would PAY Microsoft for Office vs. just using LibreOffice or Google's office suite? If you think MS hasn't done the math and figured out that solution would never break even much less turn a profit, I guess I'd ask anyone making that claim to show their work. Microsoft crunched the numbers for the platform rather than the software and decided to steamroll over the ODF format[1]. The largest revenue for MS Office comes from enterprises who do care about paying less for the OS if all they are going to use is a wordprocessor or spreadsheet. Are you claiming that desktop linux would not have been adopted by enterprises if they could get the same document render and be editable exactly the same manner irrespective of the vendor software being used ? MS has had a long dirty history. I am not opposed to giving them the benefit of doubt but it is way too little, and way too early to do this right now. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standardization_of_Office_Open_XML#International_standardization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standardization_of_Office_Open... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standardization_of_Office_Open_XML#Complaints_about_the_national_bodies_process https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standardization_of_Office_Open...
- devnonymous 7y ago
  I'm curious as to why I'm being downvoted. Do people disagree with the reasoning or do they disagree about the actual facts of what happened ? I'm OK if you are down voting because you think this has nothing to do with the point being commented on (although I disagree) however if it isn't I'm curious about the reasons.
- tw04 7y ago
  >Are you claiming that desktop linux would not have been adopted by enterprises if they could get the same document render and be editable exactly the same manner irrespective of the vendor software being used ? I am ABSOLUTELY claiming that. No legitimate enterprise is going to roll-their-own Linux desktop. They're still going to want a centralized directory server tied into their mail server as well. So now they need to replace AD with? Exchange with? And they're paying Redhat or Canonical an enterprise support fee on every desktop. So now they get to retrain their entire workforce (as well as additional training for all new hires) in order to save? 5%? 10%? What's the magic number you think makes them want to go through the business disruption of that kind of a change?
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
catalogia 7y ago
> "First it was "MS breaks compatibility on purpose, screw those guys!". Now it's "sure, they're playing nice but they don't have a product in every market segment we want so they must have some nefarious master plan we haven't figure out yet!" You're framing this as a change in narrative from Microsoft critics, but I don't think that's a fair way to frame it. 20+ or so years ago people were accusing Microsoft of Extinguishing and now people are accusing Microsoft of Embracing, but if you actually listen to what people were saying they've been talking about Embrace, Extend, Extinguish the whole time. I think the narrative from Microsoft critics has remained consistent.

by tw04 7y ago

KingMachiavelli 7y ago

If Office was available for Linux, some organizations could consider deploying Linux workstations with Office since that's what most users/employees need is basically a browser (100%/users) and the Office suite (50-90%/users). Office Online is severely gimped as noted in the article and is solely to counteract adoption of Google Office.

outside1234 7y ago
What is a good example of it being gimped? I honestly think its better online than the apps themselves.
- KingMachiavelli 7y ago
  In Office 365 Excel, there is no way to zoom out or in besides the browser's zoom which causes the whole UI to be scaled.
  - tracker1 7y ago
    You may want to look in their uservoice forums to see how requested that feature is, and upvote it. I've seen a few of the features I've requested and supported bear fruit from this.
- wazanator 7y ago
  Excel is much more limited in the browser compared to the desktop app. Conditional formatting for example can not use formulas in the online version. The browser version is good but it's not at the same level as the desktop or even Google sheets yet.
- leblancfg 7y ago
  See https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/office365/servicedescriptions/office-online-service-description/office-online-service-description#excel https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/office365/servicedescriptio... When you see a footnote next to a 'Yes' in the online version, read it as a 'No for 90% of use cases'.
darkcha0s 7y ago
What kind of an assumption is this. Most people need an operating system they are comfortable doing their daily work, not just a browser and a notepad. Jesus christ, not all non-devs work only in office.
- KingMachiavelli 7y ago
  > Most people need an operating system they are comfortable doing their daily work. True, and Windows is very entrenched partly due to Office and legacy software depending on it. Chromebooks and Mac OS seem to be adopted without to much hindrance from a UI perspective. i.e How much more populate would Chromebooks be if they ran the full desktop Office suite? > not all non-devs work only in office. Certainly not all but a lot of jobs, particularly in management consist mostly of emails, meetings, spreadsheets, word documents + a few web apps. Also, lets not forget about all the jobs where the computer isn't really part of the job at all; it's just a tool to communicate (email) and for document production/consumption. These machines are basically kiosks that Microsoft has milking licenses out of for Windows + Office + 365 Storage. Some businesses can switch to Google but many rely on existing Excel spreadsheets elsewhere in their organization so there is a lot of momentum to switch away from non-desktop spreadsheet and document applications.
  - ClumsyPilot 7y ago
    I disagree with this 'legacy software's moniker, all the most productive software falls into this category. Look at the Autodesk Suite, Adobe Suite, Enterprise Architect, blender3D, Unity game engine, a traditional IDE like Jetbrains or VisualStudio. They have waay more power than the their web-based or, worse yet, electron competitors.
    - KingMachiavelli 7y ago
      I was only referring to software that's still tied to Windows out of legacy/inertia. I'm not saying all desktop applications are legacy. But It's appropriate because if those application were going to be rewritten today, there is no way they would tie them exclusively to the Win32 API. Blender, Jetbrains IDE's, and even VSCode (pretty sure Unity is multiplatform too) are all working just fine with multiplatform and aren't dependent on any particular OS. If you've ever had to deal with Autodesk like software, it's a mess of old code and poor practices. It's a nightmare getting that kind of software working for Enterprise/Educational environments. Just looking at the Enterprise Architect site brings me back to the days when software used to come on actual disks in large, book-like boxes. Yes, the software is useful and has yet to be replaced by something more modern, whether web based or at least multi-platform. But that's why it's entrenched in many businesses and Microsoft is riding on the back of that by making sure it's tied to their platform.
Delmania 7y ago
No, they wouldn't. What kind of claim is this? Active directory, group policy, etc. If you're running an org on Google Business, sure, but most large organizations are running AD and Windows works well with that.

excursionist 7y ago

Microsoft has historically been the single greatest enemy of Linux and Open Source in general. The only reason they now changed face and hopped on the Linux train is that they realized they lost or cannot possibly win the battle when it comes to servers, embedded devices, a large section of developers, mobile, etc. > I can tell you unequivocally the thing holding back the average enterprise from moving their entire business to Linux on the Desktop is NOT Microsoft Office It may not be office specifically, but vendor lock-in with various MS products is definitely a huge factor. Also, every single "quoted" piece of your comment is cheap strawman.

Someone1234 7y ago
People don't use Linux Desktop because it is bad. Constantly looking for others to blame (Microsoft, DRM, Google, Valve, Apple, etc) doesn't change that fact. The fact that Google has been able to take the Linux kernel twice and produce a better and more popular desktop experience (with Android and then Chromebook) should be a good indication of that. Linux Desktop is exclusively designed for Linux developers, it is user hostile, highly inconsistent, difficult to centrally manage, not accessible (and thus could leave employers liable to lawsuits in some countries), and buggy. Incidentally Microsoft does have a version of Office that runs on Linux: Office Online. Yet somehow nobody is quitting Windows, MacOS, and Chromebook to go Linux Desktop even for completely free. If you want Linux Desktop to be a success, maybe spend less time finding the latest scapegoat and more time helping make it a good user experience. Personally I don't think it can be fixed not because the software is beyond saving, but the community surrounding it doesn't actually want it to be an experience for regular non-technical people. Try going to a mailing list and suggesting that editing text files in /etc isn't a practical end-user experience and see what response you get.
- pytester 7y ago
  >People don't use Linux Desktop because it is bad. There is a reason why it is not offered as an option to be preinstalled on laptops except in a few instances. That reason is not "because it is bad". The windows license is a tax on laptops. End of story. I have a dell xps 13 and even I paid it (dell's developer edition laptop is often hard to acquire for some reason).

devnonymous 7y ago

> Everytime I hear someone say "just look, they don't support office on Linux!" I ask: and what exactly do you think the market share is of guys who love Linux so much they use it on the desktop, but also would PAY Microsoft for Office vs. just using LibreOffice or Google's office suite? If you think MS hasn't done the math and figured out that solution would never break even much less turn a profit, I guess I'd ask anyone making that claim to show their work. Microsoft crunched the numbers for the platform rather than the software and decided to steamroll over the ODF format[1]. The largest revenue for MS Office comes from enterprises who do care about paying less for the OS if all they are going to use is a wordprocessor or spreadsheet. Are you claiming that desktop linux would not have been adopted by enterprises if they could get the same document render and be editable exactly the same manner irrespective of the vendor software being used ? MS has had a long dirty history. I am not opposed to giving them the benefit of doubt but it is way too little, and way too early to do this right now. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standardization_of_Office_Open_XML#International_standardization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standardization_of_Office_Open... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standardization_of_Office_Open_XML#Complaints_about_the_national_bodies_process https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standardization_of_Office_Open...

devnonymous 7y ago
I'm curious as to why I'm being downvoted. Do people disagree with the reasoning or do they disagree about the actual facts of what happened ? I'm OK if you are down voting because you think this has nothing to do with the point being commented on (although I disagree) however if it isn't I'm curious about the reasons.
tw04 7y ago
>Are you claiming that desktop linux would not have been adopted by enterprises if they could get the same document render and be editable exactly the same manner irrespective of the vendor software being used ? I am ABSOLUTELY claiming that. No legitimate enterprise is going to roll-their-own Linux desktop. They're still going to want a centralized directory server tied into their mail server as well. So now they need to replace AD with? Exchange with? And they're paying Redhat or Canonical an enterprise support fee on every desktop. So now they get to retrain their entire workforce (as well as additional training for all new hires) in order to save? 5%? 10%? What's the magic number you think makes them want to go through the business disruption of that kind of a change?

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

catalogia 7y ago

> "First it was "MS breaks compatibility on purpose, screw those guys!". Now it's "sure, they're playing nice but they don't have a product in every market segment we want so they must have some nefarious master plan we haven't figure out yet!" You're framing this as a change in narrative from Microsoft critics, but I don't think that's a fair way to frame it. 20+ or so years ago people were accusing Microsoft of Extinguishing and now people are accusing Microsoft of Embracing, but if you actually listen to what people were saying they've been talking about Embrace, Extend, Extinguish the whole time. I think the narrative from Microsoft critics has remained consistent.