Hi guys, I´m analysing different possibilities to bring the cost of the Charity Company I´m working for. They are paying for Windows through the nose. The Company uses Windows 7 and Microsoft Office 2010, which includes Outlook 2010.

They absolutely need Microsoft Office 2010 for their relationship with clients and providers. I´d really appreciate if someone can tell me whether I could suggest to the Managing Director to migrate everything to Linux? Is there any way to integrate the MS Applications into Linux avoiding a dual boot?

Thank you very much beforehand for your help.

It is simple as that: If your business is relying on Microsoft software than you have to use Microsoft software. There may be a way to get Office 2010 running with wine in Linux, but I doubt that you will have the full functionality available with it. Some things will simply don't work.
Or to make it short: That charity company is successfully vendor locked-in.

Hi,

First off: welcome here!

Secondly...if you have to use office...you cannot get past the price tag...
You've got options, but if it somehow involves ms, you'll bleed cash. On the other hand, what are their needs? Exchange of documents? Libre can handle it. Automation of some tasks? Python, Perl and Bash scripting. Mailing stuff? Evolution (to name but one) does that. Surfing? Firefox, Iceweasel,...

Oh sure, there is Wine, a package that emulates an ms PC, but it involves installing the os, and the package...and that'll cost...

Maybe, they dont really need ms anymore...I suggest analysing the needs and evaluating what (withing the Linux domain) to use to meet these.

Thor

1 members found this post helpful.

the best way to go about this is probably to use virtualization software (such as VirtualBox) to run Windows from within Linux. it has what is called "seamless mode" which allows Windows programs to run on the Linux desktop with other Linux programs as if it were one.

how this differs from using WINE to run Windows programs is significant. WINE can be quite buggy running some programs since it is trying to recreate all of the Windows API as comparable Linux API calls.

if using VirtualBox seamless mode, the Windows programs are being run by a genuine Windows installation, so it will run perfectly.

WINE may do the trick as well though, which would have the advantage of not needing to actually have a Windows license purchased from MS. I've run Office 2003 and 2007 in WINE, and I don't recall having any issues. i did not try Outlook though. only Word, Excel, and Powerpoint.

i have not tried Office 2010 in WINE.

0 members found this post helpful.

How does it solve the OP's problem of not having to install windows to save money?!

Wrong, you don't need to install Windows to run Wine. Also, wine is not an emulator, it is "just" an application layer which translates calls to the Windows API to Linux system calls.

Also using Virtualbox does not make things cheaper, you still need a Windows license.

@TobiSGD
Granted, my words may have come out wrong...I had Sun's VirtualBox in mind, that does require an install...but you've proven my point somehow...

...in that you still do need the software. Talk about a lock-in...

Probably hopeless. If you are buying computers, it is most cost effective to buy the computer, Windows and Office bundled together. Buying a computer and office without Windows usually costs more.

Using Office without buying it is stealing, so I assume you want to buy Office but avoid buying Windows. Then you might be able to use Office via Wine in Linux (I haven't tried that myself). But to save any money doing that, you need a situation in which buying Office alone costs less than Office plus Windows. It is sold enough different ways, I'm sure that is sometimes true. But if you are cost conscious through the whole process I expect you are in one of the common situations where Windows plus Office costs no more than Office alone.

TobiSG is right: if you need all the features of MSOffice, you are succesfully vendor-locked in. I don't have to expalin that business model [again].

However, it might pay off to see how compatible LibreOffice is. Most of the time it is. My experience is that 95% of all Office users don't use more features than available in Google Docs(*). LibreOffice handles those sufficiently well. If real advanced features of MsOffice are being used, like pictures, graphics, outline numbering, headings, MSOffice is not even compatible with itself from one version to the next. This is mostly valid for Word. The performance of Calc as Excel replacement might be less, and Impress for Powerpoint even less so. Still you might want to look into it.

I have seen a lot of times that Evolution seems to be a drop-in replacement for Outlook, but that is only hearsay.

Virtual machines is no solution as you still have to pay the licences. Really.

jlinkels


(*) And even then many users are not able to carry out most basic things like proper layout and formatting, using styles etc.

I checked the WineHQ appDB, and came across this: http://appdb.winehq.org/objectManage...ication&iId=31 look through the links at the bottom of that page and see if the MS office parts you use are listed, if so then see if they work for the 2010 versions by clicking the link, if they aren't listed, though, then maybe you can get it running but I wouldn't count on it.

Why are they tied in to MS office specifically, though, is it a file format issue? I'm not really familiar with MS office, having never owned a copy.

You really have to analyze your needs -- there's no way (I wouldn't suggest WINE -- too unreliable, IMO) to run Outlook without paying for both Outlook and a Windows license.

Is Outlook necessary? As far as I know, Evolution (brought up earlier in this thread) is the most common replacement, but there's also Mozilla Thunderbird. If you have free time, I'd suggest trying each of these out (both run on Windows, and would be functionally equivalent to how they'd run in Linux).

Is Microsoft Office necessary? LibreOffice (and OpenOffice, but the tide's moving to LibreOffice now) can read and write Microsoft formats to a large extent. Again, I'd suggest trying it out -- see if it's really necessary.

Even if these replacements prove to be suitable, I'd advise against dropping Windows entirely. My recommendation is to do a gradual switch; people need to get used to the change, and if anything comes up, it doesn't halt productivity for everyone. Also, leave around some Windows computers, in case you still need them in the future; the majority of your licensing costs should go away, and what remains should be worth the security of knowing you have Windows around.

Even if these replacements aren't suitable for the whole organization, there might be some people for which they are suitable -- in that case, I suggest that you propose to switch just their computers to Linux (again, gradually, so there isn't a halt in productivity). Again, you'll save money, without sacrificing your ability to operate when Windows is required.

I hope this helps.

You should also consider the cost for people to learn a new OS and/or software.

Kind regards

Cut to the chase; No, not unless you are prepared to compromise somewhere.

(Note also that, around here at least, charities can be more difficult to persuade of the virtues of non-MS software, because, in spite of their desire to run things on a shoestring, tax breaks that they are getting on MS (or other) software constitutes a kind of perverse incentive, but that is probably not the case where you are.)

Most people don't actually need MS Office, however many are unable to cope with issues of learning a new WP (feeble, or what? Well, it is what it is and while the MD might be happy to decide what software their employees ought to be using, they would be completely unwilling to contemplate changing software themselves, unless it is exactly the same to use. Don't ask me why.)

I'm sure, if they were willing, Libre Office would do the job, but they probably aren't willing/motivated.

For something like Outlook/Outlook Express/Exchange, you could create a similar system based around Evolution, or something, but again, where would be their motivation to change? Unless their existing system is causing them real grief (crashes, functional shortcomings, or actual financial pain caused by licenses - and there might be financial irritation caused by the cost of licenses, but unless the costs exceed the costs to change (costs of the time to prepare integrate and roll out the new scheme, and costs associated with training - usually, for a small business, this won't be the case) then it will stay as just an irritation, and not anything sufficiently problematic to motivate a change).

• You don't want a dual boot, for reasons of operational convenience; you'll always be forcing people to waste time rebooting, and that isn't efficient
• Even if you can get whatever version of Office to run under Wine, or something, it is hardly a solution that can be recommended; there will be some issues and you'll still have to pay for the office suite.
• You could virtualise something-or-another, but it is unclear what problem this actually solves; you'll still have to pay for licenses for everything that you do run (both Windows and the Office stack)
• There might be a possibility using something like Citrix/Thin-ish Clients; in this approach, you use Citrix to provide Windows/MS Office to those desktops that actually need the MS Apps, and, to the extent that is practicable, you use native Linux/Linux app stack, where the MS Stack isn't actually needed; this could be a nice solution, but you really will need to look at the numbers very carefully; 1 or 2 users, and you will never pay for the initial commissioning costs, too high a percentage 'needing' the full windows stack, and you'll still never pay for it because of the licenses that you'll still need.
• There might even be a case for going thin client approach, irrespective of whether the users get a MS-like desktop, or something else, but that's a rather different question, and again, you need to look at the numbers first

Bottom line, if I may, is to get into the needs of the customer. personally, vendor-lockin is not permanent. It boils down to understanding the needs and finding alternatives to fill in the needs.

What do they need that only ms office could provide? Let's be honest here, I just saw the startup of ms office just this morning...not spectacular. I saw my pension creep up on me as I waited for the thing to start up. Come on, there's gotta be a better way to spend time on a computer...

@OP - just what do they need. Maybe we can do some charity work of our own here

So, some facts:

1) You want to save money.
2) You MUST use M$ Office 2010.
3) You want to switch everything to Linux.

As stated above, it's probably best to stick to Window$. For wine compatibility see:
http://appdb.winehq.org/objectManage...ication&iId=31
it's not that great, and that's only for the installer. So, it's likely there will be problems and your clients will not be happy with it, and probably neither will the boss.

So, wine is not a good option in this case.

A VM, like stated above, will NOT save you money because you still have to buy Window$, and maybe even the VM software.

This rules out a VM as a solution.

Your main problem is #2. You cannot save money until you leave M$.