Re: How Disingenuous

  • From: Steve Baker <ice@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: technocracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 23:19:24 -0500

"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

Other related posts: