Microsoft considering on releasing Office for Linux in 2014

[octoberasian]

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTI5MzU

It's already known that Microsoft will be releasing a port of their Office suite for Android in 2013. As I tweeted this morning, "heard this weekend in #Brussels that #Microsoft might release a native #Linux version of #Office in 2014."

From a source in Brussels, Belgium during the Free Open-Source Developers' European Meeting (FOSDEM) this past weekend, I was informed that Microsoft is having a "meaningful look" at a full Linux port of Office thanks to Linux showing signs of commercial viability on the desktop. Right now some versions of Microsoft Office will work under Linux via the use of Wine or CodeWeavers' CrossOver to varying extents, but this port being evaluated internally at Microsoft is a fully native implementation. Evidently there's already some port to unknown completion that has been done internally at the company.

My reaction: Has Hell frozen over?

 

[nOrVow]

"If Microsoft ever does applications for Linux it means I've won." - Linus Torvalds

 

[MrCrispy]

It makes perfect sense. They are moving towards Office as a subscription service, and its going to be on as many platforms as possible.

 

[GotNoRice]

"If Microsoft ever does applications for Linux it means I've won." - Linus Torvalds

Won what? Certainly not any money.

 

[Dreamerbydesign]

Won what? Certainly not any money.

It has nothing to do with money, and everything to do with principle.

 

[octoberasian]

"If Microsoft ever does applications for Linux it means I've won." - Linus Torvalds

Won what? Certainly not any money.

It has nothing to do with money, and everything to do with principle.

Yup, pretty much-- principle.

I was surprised myself when I read this. With Steam coming to Linux and now possibly Office, could Linux actually have a bigger chance now at gaining more users?

Maybe, maybe not. There are still some usability and hardware issues (*cough*AMD*cough*) that have to be worked out. But, other than that, it is making it more and more a viable OS to migrate to if people aren't comfortable with the changes in Windows 8 (and beyond).

 

[dr.stevil]

Who on Linux would want it though (serious question)? There are plenty of alternatives to office on Linux

 

[chinesepiratefood]

Who on Linux would want it though (serious question)? There are plenty of alternatives to office on Linux

There are on Windows, too.

 

[/dev/null]

Who on Linux would want it though (serious question)? There are plenty of alternatives to office on Linux

Those of us who keep a VM around JUST for office.

 

[Fort_Major]

It makes perfect sense. They are moving towards Office as a subscription service, and its going to be on as many platforms as possible.

Ditto. They're losing the marketshare to phones/tablets and committing suicide on the remaining Desktop OS sector.

All that's left is what they originally announced they wanted to do. Have everybody pay 150 bucks a year for the right to breathe/user their software.

 

[Fort_Major]

Who on Linux would want it though (serious question)? There are plenty of alternatives to office on Linux

In this "Pay money for common app/service such as Office/Mail" this actually makes perfect sense.

Microsoft's lack of attention to the "future of the desktop" in the business world has left many businesses stuck on 15 year old technology running on a modern OS and the rest running in the backwards world that is HTML5/JavaScript.

This means that more and more businesses are/will be going with all web-based applications. When your applications are web based you actually care less and less about the user's OS.

One of the biggest reasons I see companies still hanging on to windows is
Office
Outlook/Exchange (they see it as not office)
Active Directory
Hybrid Systems suck. You can't have 80% of your users on *nix and 20% on Windows because you usually can't have users be troubled with running VM software.
That and Windows automatically comes with every computer

 

[heatlesssun]

Ditto. They're losing the marketshare to phones/tablets and committing suicide on the remaining Desktop OS sector.

There doesn't seem to be any market evidence to this point that Microsoft is "committing suicide" in the desktop space. Mac sales were way down last quarter, much more so than even PCs and Linux desktop market share to date isn't picking up much steam, pun intended. Those I guess Linux is picking up Steam, it's hard to see how a Steam Box is going to radically change Linux's fortunes on the desktop. Of course there are products like the Ubuntu phone and tablet, but in essence that's the same idea as Windows 8, though maybe better executed, time will tell.

The bottom line is that the traditional market of PCs, desktops and laptops, is simply in decline and it seems to be affecting Macs as well. Microsoft does need new revenue streams to offset Window sales declines and price pressures and in theory Office for Linux makes sense in a way but then who would actually buy it? There really is a ideological rift between Microsoft and the Linux community that prides itself in FOSS.

 

[heatlesssun]

Microsoft's lack of attention to the "future of the desktop" in the business world has left many businesses stuck on 15 year old technology running on a modern OS and the rest running in the backwards world that is HTML5/JavaScript.

So what is the future of the business desktop? And I don't know exactly how Microsoft would control it as so many businesses have such a mix of tools and technologies, methodologies, budgets, etc. A lot of these older apps have nothing to do with Microsoft but with the costs and benefits of retrofitting them for instance.

 

[Fort_Major]

There doesn't seem to be any market evidence to this point that Microsoft is "committing suicide" in the desktop space. FOSS.

The committing suicide is pertaining to Microsoft's apparent decision/direction that Windows and Windows users should no longer be desktop users. Instead they should be focused on huge Tiles streaming social media.

 

[heatlesssun]

The committing suicide is pertaining to Microsoft's apparent decision/direction that Windows and Windows users should no longer be desktop users. Instead they should be focused on huge Tiles streaming social media.

The workforce is getting older, at least in many developed parts of the world. Huge tiles are easier to see.

 

[Fort_Major]

So what is the future of the business desktop? And I don't know exactly how Microsoft would control it as so many businesses have such a mix of tools and technologies, methodologies, budgets, etc. A lot of these older apps have nothing to do with Microsoft but with the costs and benefits of retrofitting them for instance.

I see the future of business desktops as being pretty stagnant right now and in the near future.

The "OS maker/Platform Makers" control everything about the software that is built and its capabilities. To a lesser but still critically important the Tool Makers help shape this future.

In the past Microsoft got the Platform down years before anybody else did. They built some of the best development tools, possibly too good. Few development tools can even hold a candle to theirs (and are now out of business or all but out of business) and thus many tools add-on to MS tools.

However they seem to be running in too many directions and in the end they've done a complete circle. They were working on a "future platform" but all but discontinued development and adding additional tooling support for this future platform. They have spent the last 5+ years building 2 new non-standard web platforms that essentially tried to compete with HTML5/Flash. They killed one of the platforms and rebuilt the killed platform and removed the cross-platformability and (I think the web deployment of it). Their tooling support for this latest rendition of this platform has even poorer tooling support than the tooling support for its older but now dead sibling.

If you're building software and it's on Windows you're ultimately building it on Win32+COM.

The layers in between Win32 and COM and the tools you use really simply determine how long it takes you to get to the end point and how much effort. In this equation generally the less effort and the faster you got there the slower your app will be. (Think .NET 4.0 + WPF).

How fast can they get you somewhere? Sometimes its the difference between hours/days and weeks versus weeks/months/years.

 

[Fort_Major]

The workforce is getting older, at least in many developed parts of the world. Huge tiles are easier to see.

The tiles just stream Social Media. Those folk don't need no stinkin' social media!!!!

 

[heatlesssun]

However they seem to be running in too many directions and in the end they've done a complete circle. They were working on a "future platform" but all but discontinued development and adding additional tooling support for this future platform. They have spent the last 5+ years building 2 new non-standard web platforms that essentially tried to compete with HTML5/Flash. They killed one of the platforms and rebuilt the killed platform and removed the cross-platformability and (I think the web deployment of it). Their tooling support for this latest rendition of this platform has even poorer tooling support than the tooling support for its older but now dead sibling.

I think a lot of people have been running around looking for the next big thing in development and it just hasn't materialized. Sure, it's easy to say Silverlight was a mistake but it did have lot going for it but the world is just HTML/CSS/JS crazy. As far as the tooling, not sure where you're coming from on this but the tools for building Metro apps in whatever language and even being able to mix solutions up with different languages, HTML/CSS/JS for the front end, C++ or C# for back end stuff is pretty cool. I haven't even taken a look at Update 2 for VS 2012 because there's no doubt going to be another major rev for Windows Blue in the coming weeks.

 

[wonderfield]

Microsoft's lack of attention to the "future of the desktop" in the business world has left many businesses stuck on 15 year old technology running on a modern OS and the rest running in the backwards world that is HTML5/JavaScript.

It's backwards, but it's also quite beautiful when properly executed. Any company currently making investments in that world becoming a very significant part of the user space in the next 3-5 years is a smart company, and Microsoft appears to be interested in that.

 

[bigdogchris]

With Microsoft trying everything in their power to move to an Apple like environment, I wouldn't be surprised if Linux takes off as a platform for those of us who want a traditional desktop OS.

 

[Fort_Major]

I think a lot of people have been running around looking for the next big thing in development and it just hasn't materialized. Sure, it's easy to say Silverlight was a mistake but it did have lot going for it but the world is just HTML/CSS/JS crazy. As far as the tooling, not sure where you're coming from on this but the tools for building Metro apps in whatever language and even being able to mix solutions up with different languages, HTML/CSS/JS for the front end, C++ or C# for back end stuff is pretty cool. I haven't even taken a look at Update 2 for VS 2012 because there's no doubt going to be another major rev for Windows Blue in the coming weeks.

There's a difference between running around and looking for the next big thing and having the next big thing and ignoring it. And building something that you kill 5 years later. And then thinking that product that you just killed that never got off the ground is so awesome that you're going to REBUILD it again.

But this time build it closer to COM and make it only work on COM Components. Oh and remove all of the stuff that remotely made Silverlight Development/Tooling half way redeemable.

I'm not sure who ever thought that Silverlight was a great idea or had a huge future given that we already knew at the time that the world was becoming more and more device agnostic. The mobile phone explosion was just starting to be recognized.

God knows that Microsoft spent an ungodly amount of money trying to get companies to use Silverlight. R&D money that probably never saw an iota of return.

The tooling support for Windows Metro was a rewrite of the tooling support for Silverlight - basically minus the few cool things that got added to Silverlight,

And unfortunately Windows Metro is Microsoft chasing a dream that they have never been able to catch, at the expense of leaving their Desktop Software using Businesses out literally hanging. Hanging on API/platforms that are 15-20 year old or a nice but semi-bloated platform where some of the tooling support badly required hasn't been updated in a 1/2 a decade. 10 years ago that wouldn't matter but with today's cycles that is starting to hurt.

There's a buttload of applications out there that most people in this world have no idea even exist. They are the software that bring the modern world to people. They cannot be re-written in languages/on platforms that are meant for consumers.

 

[heatlesssun]

With Microsoft trying everything in their power to move to an Apple like environment, I wouldn't be surprised if Linux takes off as a platform for those of us who want a traditional desktop OS.

I think most people less than hardcore would simply install on of the many Start Menu replacements if the old UI meant that much too them. Plus Linux GUI shells for have many years been much slicker and cooler than the classic Windows desktop GUI, that really didn't drive adoption of Linux desktops. Ultimately the desktop and mobile aren't different in that the name of the game is apps and support. Until Linux gets those in spades on the desktop I don't think Linux on the desktop will do any better because of a UI change in Windows.

 

[Fort_Major]

It's backwards, but it's also quite beautiful when properly executed. Any company currently making investments in that world becoming a very significant part of the user space in the next 3-5 years is a smart company, and Microsoft appears to be interested in that.

Yes, Microsoft appears to be lacking in the "properly executed" department as of lately. I would argue that this is because they keep chasing the wrong dreams/women.

It will be interesting if they can get SaaS working for them and then whether it will come bite consumers in the butt, like a dominating Windows Desktop did (spyware/adware/#1 hack target/reliance)

 

[heatlesssun]

And unfortunately Windows Metro is Microsoft chasing a dream that they have never been able to catch, at the expense of leaving their Desktop Software using Businesses out literally hanging.

Metro and the desktop aren't at odds. They aren't as well integrated as they need to be but they serve different purposes. It's simply that in the Windows 8 world what can be done on a desktop and a tablet can be done on one device. Ubuntu is following that path. Google launching the Pixel clearly shows they are thinking about hybrid computing from the Chrome perspective though I don't know why they chose such an expensive device to start with. And do you really think that there's never going to be a touch capable MacBook?

 

[Fort_Major]

I think most people less than hardcore would simply install on of the many Start Menu replacements if the old UI meant that much too them. Plus Linux GUI shells for have many years been much slicker and cooler than the classic Windows desktop GUI, that really didn't drive adoption of Linux desktops. Ultimately the desktop and mobile aren't different in that the name of the game is apps and support. Until Linux gets those in spades on the desktop I don't think Linux on the desktop will do any better because of a UI change in Windows.

Linux is missing the Platform and the Tools. This has always been their problem and unfortunately they are unable to admit it let alone tackle it.

With few Open Source Users/Developers capable of dreaming of what that platform should be, let alone wanting it platform.

Linux is okay for casual use and arguably it's made "somewhat strides and leaps" in the past 20 years. But I imagine it will still have huge difficulty displacing Windows even with Microsoft axing desktop features. I would have to guess that OSX would still be a better desktop alternative for the "more main stream user" who was discerning enough.

As the world is going however the point is pretty moot. More and more users can do the stuff they are doing on tablets and more and more use software that can almost be built in HTML5/JavaScript.

Gone are the days where people developed software to solve problems and people used that software to build the world around them. It's all about Angry Brids, txting 975 to your bank because you overdrafted or are questioning a charge and Blaming Obama for everything.

 

[Fort_Major]

Metro and the desktop aren't at odds. They aren't as well integrated as they need to be but they serve different purposes. It's simply that in the Windows 8 world what can be done on a desktop and a tablet can be done on one device. Ubuntu is following that path. Google launching the Pixel clearly shows they are thinking about hybrid computing from the Chrome perspective though I don't know why they chose such an expensive device to start with. And do you really think that there's never going to be a touch capable MacBook?

I would say that Windows Metro and the Desktop are very much at odds and Microsoft is the one responsible.

Why else would Microsoft remove a critical "desktop feature" simply to force all users to always go to Metro on the desktop.

Why do you have Metro stuff popping up when you're in the desktop and all of the Metro stuff is usually more numbed down stuff that has less functionality and is usually less keyboard navigable.

If you're in the Desktop - you're in the desktop. If you're in Metro you're in metro.

There was no point to forcing desktop users use Metro except that Microsoft has this thing where "you buy the software but they dictate how you use it" instead of letting you make a choice. And it's bitten them in the butt several times and despite the fact that they told manufacturers to make it as difficult as possible to get a Windows 7 PC is still its biting them in the butt.

Apple was the first to do it but afaik they didn't remove stuff from OSX to make ios which was heavily based on that core.

ChromeOS/Chrome are both great examples of great software gone horribly awry for much the same reason. Chrome tries to convince users that you can't surf the web without signing into a Google account. Chrome refuses to give you the option to open or save a file. They try so hard to make it seem like the web is big and scary and only they can protect you by having you use Google <product> which they happily shove a huge list of in your face every time you open a new tab.

Making a tablet OS is great crippling your desktop OS to try to force desktop users to use your tablet features on a non-touchscreen. It should reeks of a bad idea, because it is a bad idea. It's like putting a Green Lo-Water efficiency Washmachine to handle the clothing for oil refinery employees.

 

[heatlesssun]

Linux is okay for casual use and arguably it's made "somewhat strides and leaps" in the past 20 years. But I imagine it will still have huge difficulty displacing Windows even with Microsoft axing desktop features. I would have to guess that OSX would still be a better desktop alternative for the "more main stream user" who was discerning enough.

It never ceases to amaze my how so many people will call Windows bloated then even more people get on Microsoft's case when it cleans things up or remove things that either aren't widely used or just decides to move on. It's not like there aren't almost always alternatives. The one thing that I did miss from the Windows 7 desktop were desktop gadgets. One web search and a minute later, installed a program and put back the gadgets. Seems faster than the built-in Windows 7 stuff to me anyway.

Somehow Windows 8 has supposedly removed choice and yet I see more choices with Windows 8 than ever. Different Start Menus, gadget handlers, touch hardware and software that never existed before, so much choice it's hard to even know that all of the choices are.

As the world is going however the point is pretty moot. More and more users can do the stuff they are doing on tablets and more and more use software that can almost be built in HTML5/JavaScript.

An argument that seems to be made by a lot of people that lament Windows 8 that to me is one of the best cases for exactly why Microsoft did what it did with Windows 8.

 

[Fort_Major]

An argument that seems to be made by a lot of people that lament Windows 8 that to me is one of the best cases for exactly why Microsoft did what it did with Windows 8.

Why, so they don't use it? because that is basically what is happening. Microsoft was scared of the Desktop dying, jumped onboard the Tablet springboard hoping to follow behind iPad/Nexus and left the baby in the pickup with the windows rolled up.

Short of pulling a furry rabbit out of a magical hat I think that the best Microsoft can hope for is that the Tablet will be slightly more successful than their SmartPhone/ermm Windows Phone/ ermm is that an iPhone-HTC with IceCream you have?

And because they have investors, that their Server Line stays solid and that they are successful as they attempt to transition to whole SaaS while still refusing to acknowledge any other platform or browser other than Windows/IE. All the while being solid believers that if you make something more difficult, users will use it less and your metrics will measure a reduction in usage and you should thus remove this feature and this will result in a more awesome product.

Do you remember a time when you used Windows because it was the best Operating System, with the best software and it let you do anything you wanted, however you wanted it because the people building it believed in that.

Now, it's my way or the highway and Microsoft isn't Apple.

 

[heatlesssun]

Why else would Microsoft remove a critical "desktop feature" simply to force all users to always go to Metro on the desktop.

I know of no critical desktop features that were removed that prevent my desktop applications from working and there are choices for restoring the old UI elements back if one wants.

Why do you have Metro stuff popping up when you're in the desktop and all of the Metro stuff is usually more numbed down stuff that has less functionality and is usually less keyboard navigable.

Almost all of this simply has to do with default app choices. I do think that Microsoft should have made a wizard or something to allow these choices to be made, even without having an Metro off switch. The only time I can think of that you have to deal with a Metro app are PC Settings if you want to make changes to the Metro elements of the UI like the Start Screen and so forth.

At any rate, when you understand what's going on, what the choices are and what you want to do, all of this controllable. I like some of the default Metro apps, so I don't, I use a mix across desktops, laptops and tablets as I have discovered what I want to achieve.

If you're in the Desktop - you're in the desktop. If you're in Metro you're in metro.

Metro apps can run in snap view with desktop apps in the main view side-by-side, do it all of the time especially on laptops and tablets, very cool feature, not so much on my multiple screen desktops.

There was no point to forcing desktop users use Metro except that Microsoft has this thing where "you buy the software but they dictate how you use it" instead of letting you make a choice. And it's bitten them in the butt several times and despite the fact that they told manufacturers to make it as difficult as possible to get a Windows 7 PC is still its biting them in the butt.

The vast majority of the apps in the Windows Store are free and will be like the other app stores. The ones I use most, Netflix, Kindle, Nook, web browsers and free games aren't making any more for Microsoft. I've bought some games, bought a nice calculator, this cool Star Trek LCARS app, etc. I wasn't forced to buy any of this stuff and it's not like I have bought way more in desktop apps with just the purchase of a few of Steam games and a PowerDVD 12 since I've started buying Windows Store apps.

ChromeOS/Chrome are both great examples of great software gone horribly awry for much the same reason. Chrome tries to convince users that you can't surf the web without signing into a Google account. Chrome refuses to give you the option to open or save a file. They try so hard to make it seem like the web is big and scary and only they can protect you by having you use Google <product> which they happily shove a huge list of in your face every time you open a new tab.

Making a tablet OS is great crippling your desktop OS to try to force desktop users to use your tablet features on a non-touchscreen. It should reeks of a bad idea, because it is a bad idea. It's like putting a Green Lo-Water efficiency Washmachine to handle the clothing for oil refinery employees.

Don't want to buy Windows Store apps or Microsoft content, don't need to sign on with a Microsoft account.

 

[heatlesssun]

Why, so they don't use it? because that is basically what is happening. Microsoft was scared of the Desktop dying, jumped onboard the Tablet springboard hoping to follow behind iPad/Nexus and left the baby in the pickup with the windows rolled up.

Again, I just can't relate to this kind of comment as I use more desktop software than ever under Windows 8. Sorry.

Short of pulling a furry rabbit out of a magical hat I think that the best Microsoft can hope for is that the Tablet will be slightly more successful than their SmartPhone/ermm Windows Phone/ ermm is that an iPhone-HTC with IceCream you have?

As better and cheaper hardware comes out that does more and more on both the desktop and tablet than Windows 7 ever did, I think Microsoft will do better than most expect. I don't expect them to command the tablet market by any means, but for those that want tablets that get a work done, just like any Windows device always has, they have a chance of doing well.

Do you remember a time when you used Windows because it was the best Operating System, with the best software and it let you do anything you wanted, however you wanted it because the people building it believed in that.

Whether or not Windows was ever the best desktop OS ever is not something I'm particularly worried about. As far as Windows versions go, 8 is the best I've used because I can use all the software I've always used just like I always have and now can use Windows much better on tablets and with touch on a much lighter and battery efficient device than I have ever used with Windows. Desktop, laptop, keyboard, track pad, mouse, touch, pen, desktop apps, Metro apps, heck even Android apps on Windows desktops and tablets with something like Bluestacks. An incredibly rich variety of choices and options that have never all existed like this in the Windows world.

Windows 8 has it's problem but lack of choice and options just simply isn't my case, I have more than ever in the Windows world.

 

[402blownstroker]

Between openoffice and libreoffice, who gives a rats fat ass if Windoze Office runs on linux.

 

[jbltecnicspro]

I would totally get this. My wife's very used to the Office EcoSphere and if I could put Office on it so that we can be all Linux, I'd do it.

 

[Fort_Major]

Between openoffice and libreoffice, who gives a rats fat ass if Windoze Office runs on linux.

The rest of the world is (those that can both spell and put together slightly more intelligent sounding/meaningful sentences), sadly.

OpenOffice/LibreOffice are very poor alternatives to anything Office 2003 or greater if you actually use the features available in Office.

There are some things that people do in Office that could be done on spreadsheets 20-30 years ago. There are still many things that people do in Office that you probably still won't be able to do in the Open Office suite in another 5-10 years.

Neither seem to have spent a single dime or a single day actually using their software and comparing it to software that we used 10+ years ago. If they did perhaps they would realize their software looks worse than most Office productivity software did 10 years ago.

And maybe they would realize that a lot of of the improvements done in the last 10 years in that world was to cut down the # of clicks required to do something by anywhere from 2 to 20 times and drastically reduce the amount of time spent moving the mouse around getting from point a to (useless) point to point c.

Compatibility with the rest of the world at least 80% of which is Microsoft Office file formats still leaves much to be desired. Doesn't matter what format you save/export to/from MS or OpenOffice. It still manages to find ways to mungle up the seemingly simplest formatting application.

Microsoft actually supporting Office on the Linux platform I think could be very good. Perhaps Microsoft can give the OSS community guidance on one or two of the critical components they've been missing for the last 30 years.

 

[munkle]

Between openoffice and libreoffice, who gives a rats fat ass if Windoze Office runs on linux.

In school I'm required to program on certain linux machines the school has set up. I have to make timing graphs and type up reports all the time. I can 100% tell you open/libreoffice blow chunks so hard. Just to make graphs from a spreadsheet is such a pain in open/libreoffice. What takes literally 5 seconds in excel to make a graph takes 30 seconds+ if it works at all in libre/openoffice. If the data isn't formatted how libre/openoffice likes it may not even make the graph you want while it is quite easy to change which data you want to select in excel. I would rather get up and walk down the hall to the windows lab and use excel. I will gladly pay $100 for not crap software. Open/libre office is fine for the most basic of users and I mean most basic, other than that I would much rather use MS products.

Maybe they have made making graphs easier now, I don't know. I stopped trying to use the free alternatives and just use office.

 

[octoberasian]

Between openoffice and libreoffice, who gives a rats fat ass if Windoze Office runs on linux.

If you are student in elementary or high school just writing research papers, essays, English Lit. assignments, then Openoffice and Libre Office are more than enough for you.

If you are an older computer user that doesn't need the flashy pizazz of a full Office suite then this will work for you.

However, having used both Office since Office 97 and Libre Office/OpenOffice since StarOffice (yeah, that old), there are certain things you cannot do in the free alternatives (without risking patent infringements if they were included) that Office can do much, much better.

When doing assignments that require charts, comparisons, etc., Excel is miles better than what I have used from Corel Office, StarOffice, and other alternatives I've used in my life. In business, collaboration tools are also much better in Office than anything else I have seen so far. When it comes to reviewing and referencing documents, correcting them as well, Microsoft Word does them much better.

Whatever Microsoft did with Office, they did it right from the beginning and have added features and improvements over the years whether or not you like the Ribbon UI.

For Office coming to Linux, this is going to be a big change and may actually push the free alternatives to improve themselves as well. People that want and/or use a lightweight and relatively secure OS such as a Linux-based distro and just use their computer for email, collaboration and work, Microsoft Office for Linux and Linux-based OS will be very good alternative choice given that the OS is free, it's fast, and it's lightweight.

 

[pxc]

I do agree that LibreOffice and probably OO now are good enough for many users. It's not good enough for other users, like those relying on applications made with MS Office, or those requiring absolute fidelity from MS Office formats. It's often the wrong tool for the job, but I won't argue that MS Office applications aren't incredibly handy for many tasks.

I like Outlook, but otherwise would probably go with LibreOffice for most simple tasks.

If MS figured out a way to make money selling Office on other platforms besides Windows and OS X, that's probably the primary driver. I wouldn't get too excited over Linux or Android versions, since those may or may not include Outlook, and as Mac Office showed a few years ago, MS could strip out features important to some users.