IBM Wants to Port Office to Linux 662
shfted! writes "OSNews reports: As part of its initiative to put Linux on the desktop, IBM Corp. wants to migrate Microsoft Corp.'s Office suite to Linux. Microsoft said it's not involved and suggests that IBM might do it by emulation."
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Change is a comin'... (Score:3, Insightful)
Alas, this is only a good thing. Microsoft isn't wholly evil, they have just become something along those lines due to their position in the marketplace. Some competition capable of putting the fear of God into them will do nothing but improve things for everyone.
Re:Why ? (Score:3, Insightful)
perhaps because getting != got
I hope they don't.... (Score:4, Insightful)
I hope they DON'T go the "emulation" route - i.e. WINE [winehq.com]
While WINE is a nice attempt to make a Win32 compatability layer, it is just too flakey to be used in a day-to-day business sense. IBM has used WINE before for providing Linux apps - HomePage Builder comes to mind immediately - and it was NEVER stable. Display problems, startup flakeness, and just general unstableness made the product truely painful to use.
If they want to do it right - and impress people at the same time, they should make a NATIVE APP
Why could IBM do better than OpenOffice.org (Score:5, Insightful)
What could IBM achieve on it's own that they could not achieve in colaboration with OpenOffice.org? This whole effort seems rather strange and somewhat poorly thought out.
--CTH
Re:Why ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:bugs, bugs, bugs (Score:5, Insightful)
Dinosaurs (Score:1, Insightful)
Dinosaurs are large.
And they don't collaborate with other animals because they are smaller.
That's why they don't exist anymore.
And Let The Screaming Begin... (Score:4, Insightful)
Come on, people, calm down. If IBM is doing this, they're acknowledging what everyone without ideological blinders admits: until OpenOffice can write a file that's 100% compatible with its Office equivalent, it won't make any headway. MS is too entrenched at this point. I can hear those same people as above screaming about Linux, but it's also a different battleground being fought in the office suite theater than in the desktop OS one. It's a hearts, minds, and heads battle rather than an economic one (which is the only argument that has been proven effective on non-tech types when it comes to converting systems to Linux). We've all heard the stories about the intransigent secretaries. That's where the fight will take place, and it's going to be a much harder battle that needs a much more polished product.
I'm hoping that IBM realizes that it owns Lotus and uses that particular brand for this effort. It still has some cachet in corporate circles.
Re:Why ? (Score:5, Insightful)
If MS office runs on linux, there'll be nothing else closing the road for linux on the corporate desktop.
Re:Blue Linux (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why ? (Score:5, Insightful)
If this program isn't available, they won't touch your platform. I know it's sort of dumb, but it is true.
Re:bugs, bugs, bugs (Score:2, Insightful)
It is ways more clever to help making an MS compatible free office suit alternative but to subsidize a monopoly.
Now since openoffice is already pretty far developed, a vote for supporting this product at least, koffice could need some more support either. MS does not need any support at all.
If IBM want to put effort in windows emulation, they should support wine. I'd definitely love to run tomb raider on my linux box.
I'm not sure (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is A Decent Office Suite For Linux That Can Interoperate Flawlessly With Microsoft Office. There's a lot of content out there in Office format, and having darn near perfect support for the format is important for any adopters.
Re:Why ? (Score:2, Insightful)
btw, what is a PHB?
Re:Why ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:bugs, bugs, bugs (Score:5, Insightful)
And this, my friends, is the attitude that keeps Linux off the desktop.
There's a word for it: elitism.
You must REALLY hate WINE.
Having said that, it would be nice if a huge company like IBM would get behind a project like OO or KOffice, but the economics of the situation make that look like a very remote possibility. Unforrunately, we have to live in corporate reality when dealing with corporations, no matter how angelic they may seem (this year, anyway).
Re:Why could IBM do better than OpenOffice.org (Score:5, Insightful)
OpenOffice will need to make a similar transition. But that won't be happening within the existing OpenOffice framework: OpenOffice simply doesn't have the resources or will for such a radical and quick transition. Instead, it will have to be a newly designed office suite based on Mono and Gtk#. That is what IBM should really be investing in.
Re:Why ? (Score:5, Insightful)
It would be great if the Microsoft Office team was given the go ahead to develop a version of Microsoft Office for any commercially succesful platform. I'd like to see the Microsoft Office for Mac OS X team use the UNIX knowledge to develop a supported version of Microsoft Office for Linux.
Re:Probably WINE (Score:1, Insightful)
big deal (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Right now we can tell our governments not to use MS Word doc format because it's only available to certain systems. If IBM port MS Office, governments will find it harder to understand the issues involved.
The Enemy isn't MS, it's unfree software. IBM's proposal is not a contribution [gnu.org].
Non-technical people should stay silent... (Score:4, Insightful)
Stefan Pettersson, technical manager for IBM's Lotus division in Sweden, said that there will be a Java client of Lotus Notes some time during the second half of 2004. This means that the first "native" Notes client to run under Linux will soon be available.
How exactly is that "native? I'm sorry, but a java version is only native to that weird Sun java cpu that never made it out of production... it's nothing more than emulation for a machine that doesn't actually exist.
This is simple... (Score:3, Insightful)
What keeps you from foisting a Linux Desktop on the secretary isn't her ability to figure out the interface. Hell, my mom handles BlueCurve on a RedHat box like no one's business. The secretary needs an Office suite that opens Office docs and spreadsheets.
I love OpenOffice. I am writing my dissertation with it. But until OOrg can really open and manage Office file formats (including Macros in spreadsheets) then it will just be ours, not theirs.
Sure? (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you sure? Even between diferent versions of MS Office I usualy have some compatibility problems.
what makes office good is VB.. (Score:5, Insightful)
-ted
Re:Why ? (Score:5, Insightful)
In small businesses, many internal databases are in fact simple, single-user databases. Does OpenOffice.org come with a tool for building and accessing such databases that beginners can learn as easily as they manage to learn Microsoft Access?
OO -to- IBM M$ port -AS- Safari -t Mozilla (Score:5, Insightful)
Mabye IBM ( & others ) thinks Open Office is to S--L--O--W, big, unweildy etc etc.
It could be a good thing for OO as it might convince them to clean up their code( get the lead out ).
Steve
Re:And Let The Screaming Begin... (Score:3, Insightful)
If you start off wanting ever feature of MS Office you'll end up with MS Office. No free software is going to ever be able to match MS Office perfectly feature for feature. Does that mean you just give up and keeping laying down for Microsoft?
Is IBM stabbing us the in back? No. Are you wrong to say stick with MS Office until a perfect feature for feature equivalent arrives? Big Yes. I don't know what this article means since its too vague on details. But if IBM is really interested in fundamental change and stepping away from closed source where possible they should be pushing OpenOffice with all their might.
Re:Emulation (Score:5, Insightful)
OS/2 was too late, too expensive, by IBM and didn't offer any significant advantage.
So compared to OS/2, Linux has very good cards.
To go back on-topic: Emulation is a big advantage because it offers a way to do a smooth upgrade. According to your logic all software on Windows would be DOS-software because Windows offers DOS-emulation. Of course that's nonsense, without DOS-emulation, Windows wouldn't have been accepted by the masses so fast, without Windows-emulation, Linux won't be accepted by the masses very fast.
We need Win32 emulation, the sooner, the better.
Re:bugs, bugs, bugs (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why ? (Score:5, Insightful)
The argument shouldn't be that isn't not available, it should be that it's not right for a government to require you to give money to Microsoft in order to read official documents.
if that happens (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Why ? (Score:1, Insightful)
> getting so good?
Because there are many, many people that prefer to pay for Office than learn Openoffice.org. I don't understand why, but I saw it with my eyes.
Other people probably don't switch because they are concerned about 100% compatibility.
We should not underestimate the advantages for GNU/linux if MSOffice were ported. This would remove the main obstacle that prevents people from leaving Windows.
Microsoft knows that, and will not support such a move until Office revenues don't overweight Windows revenues.
Opportunity & Dangers for MS (Score:5, Insightful)
Can MS-Office be ported to Linux technically? I would say yes, because they were able to make a Mac OS X port, which has BSD-Unix underpinnings. Pretty much anything than can be done on BSD can be done on Linux. So no great feat of technology would be involved on getting MS-Office ported to Linux.
Now lets talk about why MS would or would not want to do this. If enough of a market existed (read: Corporate customers clamoring for a native Linux port), MS might have an opportunity to retain those customers (and maybe get a few new customers) and make some money doing it. So there is an opportunity for them there in the office suite market. The danger is this: MS-Office & MS-Windows are mutually supporting monopolies in the corporate world. . As long as Office effectively requires Windows, every corporate desktop sold with Office almost guarantees an accompanying windows license. So double the revenue for M$. A native Linux version of MS-Office would undermine Windows. Once Windows is undermined, then Office itself might be jeopardized because they are mutually supporting.
A native Linux port of MS-Office is just too much of a threat to the MS monopoly structure. MS knows this, so such a port will never see the light of day.
Yes, it does. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why ? (Score:1, Insightful)
Most of the "simple, single-user databases" I have seen have been horrid monsters in serious need of redesign. I would rest easier at night if Access died a quick and painless death before I have to deal with another 1-table database with columns labeled "Field1" through "Field34."
While many things like basic web design and word processing are well-suited for software enabling a user to eliminate the paid computer help, databases are often the life blood of an organization, and handing this task off to idiot-enabling wizardware is a very bad practice.
Of course, all of this is IMHO. In case you're wondering, I do NOT design databases for a living.
Re:Change is a comin'... (Score:2, Insightful)
Is anybody here on /. old enough to remember when the "Evil Empire" in computing was IBM? The subject of a massive and ultimately fruitless anti-trust suit by the DOJ? Just a question.
The funny thing is, that those who tried to do what IBM was doing just for lower cost and as a second source, they're nowhere (i.e. Amdahl) Market dominance ended when the game changed. IBM trying to out-MS MS won't work for the same reasons. They tried to do it with OS/2 and got their ass handed to them.
What the heck???? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:big deal (Score:2, Insightful)
Even if the pricing is monopolistic (and I highly doubt it will be), the important part is Microsoft Office running on Linux. OOo is close, but not there, and it will never be 100% compatible. Not even Microsoft is 100% backwards-compatible with its own earlier versions.
The major hurdle to more widespread Linux adoption on the desktop is Microsoft Office compatibility. Anything that improves that situation will get more people seriously considering Linux.
We need to keep the big picture in mind.
Re:Why ? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:what makes office good is VB.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Now while quite honestly, I've used the VB Macro extensions for useful stuff, to be rid of those Macro viruses I'd do without the VB extensions thank you very much.
Re:Emulation (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why not start with the Office X version (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why ? (Score:5, Insightful)
1) No database, just dont track any important information.
2) Use Access and make a kludge that works, although any real DBA would have a heart attack at the design.
3) Hire a DBA and pay thousands (or tens of thousands) for an over engineered database.
2 doesnt look so bad anymore.
Re:bugs, bugs, bugs (Score:5, Insightful)
You say it as if it were a bad thing..
I use Excel and Word in Linux every day. (Score:3, Insightful)
I have a shortcut to Excel on my Gnome toolbar. It's that simple.
Re:Why ? (Score:2, Insightful)
Lotus Notes (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Why ? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sure 20-30 years ago the world was filled with technical brahmins who thought computing power belonged under the care of the knowledgable few with access to the the company or university mainframe.
God forbid users actually have any sort of data processing capabilities on their desk, or much less their homes, they'll just mess things up! Not that those are REAL computers anyway...
How many people here taught themselves most of what they know about computers by screwing around on their own and breaking stuff?
Re:Why ? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Why ? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Why ? (Score:5, Insightful)
I have already replied to this point [slashdot.org].
There is a lot more involved in dealing with govt. than simply consuming documents. Sure, if you live in an authoritarian state when they dictate and the people have no voice, then yes, the reader would suffice. In a representative nation though, communication has to be a two-way street.
Sure, for simple messages you can send plain text or some other format (and hope that they know how to read it). What about something that gets passed back and forth between govt. officials/workers and people on the outside for review/comment/editing? This happens more often than you might think.
Re:Why ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why not start with the Office X version (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Why ? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Emulation (Score:3, Insightful)
"Microsoft pulled out of OS/2 & pushed Windows thus shafting IBM"
Of course, had IBM wanted to make OS/2 the winner they could have out-promoted it with their much larger war chest. Apparently, it wasn't that important to them.
Re:Why ? (Score:2, Insightful)
We can't blame Microsoft for things we do, too. That is not helpful.
Another perplexing statement (Score:2, Insightful)
<sarcasm>Yeah, Sun is not a player.</sarcasm> How big do you have to be for IBM to collaborate with you?
Why not open source Lotus Smartsuite? (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't understand the people who are saying open office is so great. I use the latest version (which has been the latest version for a while) and I don't see anything particularly interesting. Maybe in 2.0?
The rub lies in the lack of software freedom. (Score:5, Insightful)
This is partially because of the ethics the open source movement teaches--practical ends are the goal, not software freedom. When an open source program won't do the job, that movement gives one no reason to reject proprietary alternatives. Ironically, that means the open source movement's philosophy can sometimes advocate for software that is not open source. Once the desire or need for a program is sated, very little interest exists to write an open source replacement.
The free software movement, by contrast, does not have this built-in problem in its philosophy. Non-free software is rejected because (as the name says) it doesn't have the freedoms of free software--put briefly, the freedoms to share and modify the software.
It's not surprising to me that IBM would champion this. The open source movement was started to speak to business desires and it's doing an excellent job of that, even if it means giving up software freedom to achieve that end. Open source software can be a genuine contribution to our community when its advocates work on free software. I'm grateful that many open source advocates do this (IBM, for example, has contributed work to the Linux kernal under the GPL). But this is not always the case.
Re:Why ? (Score:2, Insightful)
Because, while it may be getting good, it isn't quite good enough. While I would personally like to dump Office, the fact is if I did, it would seriously inhibit my ability to interoperate with other Office users in my workplace.
Yes, I know that OO has implemented compatability with most of Office's features. Most doesn't cut it, because someone is always going to be creating a document that uses one of the obscure features that's not implemented, and having to switch back and forth between office suites to accomodate this isn't worth the time and aggrevation just so I can have bragging rights to using OO.
Anyway, one step at a time. Anything which helps Linux gain parity with Windows on the desktop is a good thing. Once that victory is achieved, then worry about commoditizing office suites. When you consider how long it's taken for Linux to achieve even the desktop penetration it's achieved now, it becomes apparent how silly it is to expect the whole world to convert to open source only solutions over night. The chances of OO and other open source solutions gaining ground are vastly improved if Linux gets it's foot in the door first. Promoting applications that just aren't satisfactory for their purpose at the expense of promoting solutions which make Linux a viable alternative is self-defeating.
Re:Why ? (Score:2, Insightful)
For the most people, a data base is a data base - regardless of whether it was clicked-together by a co-workers kid nephew, or if it was designed and implemented by a professional.
Re:Why ? (Score:2, Insightful)
Nobody would come to an idea to let the neighbours' kid perform an appendicitis surgery only because he seems to be so tallented with knifes.
Re:Why ? (Score:5, Insightful)
If there is interactive work, then the people on the outside can communicate with their contacts in the government, right? And if they don't have Word, and don't want to buy it, they can ask files to be sent in RTF. Admittedly not an ideal situation, but then again I was responding to your post stating there was no free way to read Office documents, not to write them.
But there's lots of other arguments you can make like that...supposing the the government wanted to send you a file, edit it, and send it back...but you didn't have a computer at all? You'd have to buy your own computer! And internet service! The government also, in most states, requires you to have auto insurance...but it's not free!
In any case, there IS OpenOffice, which in most cases CAN read and write Office documents. Typically I find that the extent of government document interaction is me downloading something in PDF, printing it out, and sending it in...but if the President wants to bounce a Word document back and forth with you and make some national policy, then OpenOffice might do what you need.
Re:Why ? (Score:2, Insightful)
You make a major assumption with this argument - that no one that uses Access takes the time to learn the product - a MAJOR assumption.
I prefer MySql myself, but I know access well, and I know SQL well also, does it make me less competent because I have yet one more tool in my bag?
Re:Lotus Notes (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why ? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Will Microsoft Sabotage? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Why ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Check the timestamps, this was brought up and replied to before you responded to it. The time window was only about 6 minutes though, so maybe you were already composing the reponse and didn't see that post. Sorry -- didn't mean to come across as jumping on you about it.
You can't just wave a shiny object around and say "Butbutbut you can't WRITE those formats, then!"
That was not my intention. Yes, I made a mistake. I should have said "use" instead of "read", and realized it almost immediately after posting. Thought about posting a quick follow up, but since I knew people would point out the readers even if I did, I figured it would be just as well to respond to one of them.
If there is interactive work, then the people on the outside can communicate with their contacts in the government, right? And if they don't have Word, and don't want to buy it, they can ask files to be sent in RTF.
This is probably more of an education issue than anything. Most of the people who work in government that I know would say, "What's RTF? Why can't you just use Word like everyone else?" (paraphrasing). Even then, the last time I tried to use Word filters to export to anything else the result was pretty awful. That was with Word 2000; I don't know if it's impoved any since then.
But there's lots of other arguments you can make like that...supposing the the government wanted to send you a file, edit it, and send it back...but you didn't have a computer at all? You'd have to buy your own computer! And internet service! The government also, in most states, requires you to have auto insurance...but it's not free!
The debate over whether electronic communication excludes the poor is an entirely different discussion. The situation here is akin to them requiring you to have a Dell computer, or Allstate insurance. The requirements may not be free (as in $), but you still some choice.
In any case, there IS OpenOffice, which in most cases CAN read and write Office documents.
It can read the current generation of Office documents, for the most part. The biggest problems I've encountered in it are with documents which were saved with the "protection" option enabled to make part of it read-only. There seem to be quite a few of those out there. OpenOffice can't read them at all. Irony is that this misfeature is trivial to remove for anyone who has MSWord/Excel.
The big picture, however, is that MS has the pieces in place to eventually stop this. Their new XML format is covered by patents, making it feasible for them to sue anybody who attempts to reverse engineer it or use it in a competing product. When Word 2008 or whatever drops support for saving to old formats, OO.o may not be a viable option anymore.
Typically I find that the extent of government document interaction is me downloading something in PDF
Some of the departments with more public exposure have gone PDF for forms and such. PDF is a little better than the MS formats as far as read-only data goes. They do make the specification available to the public, but restrict its distribution. So if Adobe one day decides to clamp down on the format and yank the specs, you're pretty much out of luck. I doubt they'll do that, but the possibility does exist.
Taking the license agreement at face value, I can't even quote the section that tells me I can't reproduce it. I suspect a short quote would still be covered under fair user, however.
In any case, I should point out that I have no problem with MS products in the business sector (other than technical problems). If the free market wants to use it, then let them. That's what freedom is supposed to be about. I'm just against governments letting themselves inadvertently become pawns of companies pushing proprietary formats.
Re:Why ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure thing. Now... where do I find a cut-rate DBA if I only have 25 employees? 10 employees? 5 employees? What if I have 100 employees, all of whom earn close to minimum wage, and hiring a DBA would be enough of an expense that it might make the difference between staying in business and closing up shop? What if I don't have any employees, because I'm putting together a DB for personal use (logging scores for the bowling team, keeping track of info about my gardening efforts, etc.)
There's a reason that Access exists, and a reason that it serves a decent niche market. It lets someone aside from a professional DBA put together a database, and have a good chance of it working. There are a lot of little apps out there that are based on access, require some bit of knowledge and/or experience to set up, and simply don't require the type of maintenance that calls for a DBA.
I've got one FoxPro app I put together over 10 years ago that's still in use, handling a few dozen additions/edits a month. There's not a whole lot of flash and glitter, but it does the job. This is the target market for Access and related applications, simple DB-based application generation. I suspect that there are far more Access-based applications quietly working in the background than people want to admit.
IBM Trying to attract the eyes of the DOJ? (Score:5, Insightful)
MS may have stated in the past that the reason they don't port Office to Linux is that there is 'no demand'. Now with the Linux desktop share challenging the Mac share, thos arguments are being diluted. If IBM were to offer to port it for free, gee... seems like a great deal for any company... unless you are trying ot illegally maintain your monopoly of course.
Re:Why ? (Score:4, Insightful)
No, this is not a troll. Last comment I made that trashed filemaker got modded troll, and it was...sort of.
You see, I LEARNED databases on Filemaker. But that doesn't blind me to the truth--it stinks, as does Access.
They both have a use, and are about equal in my book. But for real database work, the answer is neither--use ANY SQL database and you will be much better off.
That said the open source tools I've seen for SQL databases stink for the most part. When I see one that is as easy to use (usability folks!) as Access or Filemaker, then I will be happy.
For you power DBA's out there, let me tell you something that should frighten you. If you design the GUI well enough, then the vast majority of ppl should be able to use it at a comfortable level, leaving you to do the tough stuff--figuring out why data is bjorked, etc. The design though is not a tough concept--and a well designed gui could encourage good design (not that bad designs won't happen, but you can encourage good design).
Just a few thoughts.
What if there wasn't? (Score:4, Insightful)
One could make the analogy that this is a similar situation if the government charged an entrance fee to public buildings.
Re:Why ? (Score:2, Insightful)
Diddn't they learnanything from OS/2 ? (Score:1, Insightful)
How many copies of Office in your org? (Score:2, Insightful)
it would be extremely cost ineffective to switch to OO because it is free but pay a consultant $2k for a couple of weeks work
If you have more than about five Microsoft Office licenses, paying a consultant to translate your scripts may in fact prove less expensive than paying Microsoft for the next version.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't forget... (Score:1, Insightful)
IBM may be slow to catch on to a lot of things, but I believe their OS/2 wounds are still not healed enough yet that they trust the "Micro"computer-"Soft"ware behemoth farther than they can throw it.
IBM-supported Linux systems might be made to run Microsoft Office with IBM's blessing, but only as a small spite to MS. IBM might be philosophically able to bless such a configuration (MS-Office on Linux), but Microsoft never could. Microsoft Windows will rest in peace next to Microsoft Bob, before you ever see Microsoft Office for any OS Microsoft hasn't invested in.
A true spite would be an OOo install option to be completely MS-compatible, including load/save defaults.
On something of a sidenote, using the integrated database front-end [openoffice.org] allows more possibilities than embedded (and inadequate) Access
IBM will get into licensing mess (Score:3, Insightful)
openoffice can open Word Excel etc docs just fine, and if its streamlined further, optimised, ported everywhere etc, its already better than MS Office with about the same interface.
Re:Why ? (Score:3, Insightful)
So what? MS is under no obligation to continue providing free readers.
But once a reader is released under an Open Source license, the GPL in particular but this is true of most of them, the source is always available for modifying to use on different platforms or updating for new formats.
And one shouldn't be required to pay MS to submit or create documents in publicly acceptable formats, either.
Re:bugs, bugs, bugs (Score:1, Insightful)
There are reasons Linux hasn't seen mass desktop acceptance, configuration and application base among them. "Attitude" doesn't keep an OS of the desktop.
Two Words: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Why ? (Score:2, Insightful)
Some things just require a deeper understanding of math like concepts than a lot of the population isn't willing to have. DB design is one of those.
Re:I am an IBMer using Blue Linux (Score:3, Insightful)
IBM doesn't seem to be dedicated to "free" distros in particular. I expect that SuSE will look attractive to them at this point, but I have no idea how they make their decisions.
This is a popular misconception.
Count the number of non-free packages available from Debian.
Now count the number of non-free packages in Fedora.
In case anyone missed the transition there, we are comparing "available from" to "in". If the comparison was apples to apples, we'd have to say that Debian as no non-free packages in it, since main is the official distribution, and they have always been careful to keep main separate from non-free and contrib. FWIW, past comments here [slashdot.org] by Bruce Perens make it look like non-free may not even be "available from" them in the future. They obviously realize that they leave themselves open to characterizations like yours simply by making the other stuff available via debian.org.
Re:Why ? (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, I do design databases for a living and I can see your point. I don't completely agree with it however.
A person designing a relational database can get over their heads quite quickly. Normalizing tables correctly will make or break a database.
What I have found however is that people who have very basic needs (One table) can use Access to meet their needs. When their needs grow to a point where they can't handle it (More than one or two tables) they call me in.
Also Access comes with wizards that will create common databases. Asset tracking etc. And though the final product may not be tailored to them, it will usually be more than adequate.
I have Staroffice at home and it came with a database. I haven't had any time to play with that part of it so I don't really know how it compares with Access but Linux could defiantly use tools that will allow average users track rudimentary data without calling in a C++ guru.
Re:Why ? (Score:2, Insightful)
Consider that the alternative to using Access is a million silos of information stored in spreadsheets on desktops across your company (or the installation and administration of a real database system like SQL Server, Oracle or MySQL) and you begin to realize that a file-sharing database is a huge step up from the alternative.