"M.K. Chatterji" <chat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Considering that Office 10 for MacOS X (considered one of the > slickest implementatins of that suite on any platform) is a "Unix > implementation" of it, isn't it disingenous of this Microsoft > "Spokesman" to claim that the "engineering cost" for a Linux version > wouldn't be justified! Sheesh. Actually it almost certainly isn't a "straight port", considering that most of the work of porting office would be in the gui arena. The Mac OS X gui libraries may have little in common with GTK+ or QT. Not that Microsoft doesn't have other reasons to not port Office. At the non-gui level, there probably isn't that much difference between Unix and NT, at least none that can't be glossed over with a simple emulation library, although it probably is much more difficult to go from NT/2K/XP to Unix than the other way around. - Steve