>I am among those who think that MS may be working not only on a version of Office for Linux but on a version of Linux itself.

I don't think so.
The GPL would prevent MS from using existing versions of Linux and making it propriatary, and MS isn't going to put a lot of effort into source code which it has to furnish to the customer. If they attempted to develop a propriatary clone of Linux who would want it when they can have the real thing for free, or next to nothing? Not me.

>
>As for Sun's Linux product that uses MS Office compatible formats, please remember that better marketing often wins out over a better product. As the MS Office standard would change in the future, Sun would find itself playing "catch up" repeatedly.

Microsoft used that ploy to defeat IBM by makeing OS/2 always 'incompatiable' with the latest version of WinXX. IBM could never catch up. However, it is one thing to tweek an OS and render competitors defunc. It is another thing to change file standards and leave your own customers behind. MS has done that all too often and people are getting tired of that trick and of shelling out the money to fund it. Besides, it would be alot easier for Sun to add an import-export filter than it would be for MS to continue to justify constantly changing file standards to it's customer base. MS has hooked itself on the horns of a delima. It's development cycle is far longer than that of Sun when it comes to releasing products and upgrades. Also, once someone has installed SO they are less likely to shell out big bucks for Office, ESPECIALLY if they were being forced to 'upgrade' to W2K.



>
>As IBM once was, Microsoft is now the standard setter in many areas. Despite the DOJ case and the emergence of various Linux powers, I expect that MS will continue to have great power to establish standards. A move by Microsoft into the Linux arena would shift the focus of many in both technical and marketing effort.

Microsoft doesn't 'establish' standards as much as it hijacks them. The Kerbos standard is the most recent example. Nothing like taking a W3C internet standard and subverting it to propriatary goals just so you can grab people by the heels and shake them till their pockets are empty. Talk about being unfriendly and not getting along.

Microsoft used a 'free' IE to defeat Netscape, since their browser was their major source of income, by bundling it with the OS. That is what got them into trouble and why they were *convicted* for violating anti-trust laws. If they bundle their Office products free to combat Sun, Corel Applix or whom ever, they've cut a major revenue artery. If they give their OS away free they've shot themselves in the head. Their payroll is too big to support with free products. Their stock price would collapse and investors would haul them into court. MSDOS is still being used. Various versions of WinXX will be used for decades to come. BUT, if the DOJ does what the law requires, the playing field will be more level and MS will have to truely 'innovate' and sell on quality, not OS market domination.

The best thing Linux has going for it, besides it compact size, speed, scalability and stability is its reasonable price. High quality apps are begining to flow and will only increase in quantity. MS, on the otherhand, has introduced a reg wizard which assumes everyone is a thief, and a price structure which suggests unarmed robbery was used as its model. IMO.

Anyway, for me, it is a moot issue. I deleted Win95 from my PC weeks ago, and I left no hardware or software behind and gained the advantage of quite a few high quality apps that aren't available under WinXX. I also dropped a few apps that aren't necessary under Liunx - virus stuff, diskscan and paranoid license files.