Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

IBM Pushing Microsoft-Free Desktops

kdawson posted more than 5 years ago | from the straight-for-the-jugular dept.

Linux Business 417

walterbyrd and other readers are sending along the news that IBM is partnering worldwide with Canonical/Ubuntu, Novell, and Red Hat to offer Windows-free desktop PCs pre-loaded with Lotus software and ready for customizing by local ISVs for particular markets. The head of IBM's Lotus division is quoted: "The slow adoption of Vista among businesses and budget-conscious CIOs, coupled with the proven success of a new type of Microsoft-free PC in every region, provides an extraordinary window of opportunity for Linux." One example of the cooperation: "Canonical, which sells subscription support for Ubuntu, a Linux operating system that scores high marks on usability and 'the cool factor,' will re-distribute Lotus Symphony via their repositories. Symphony 1.1 will be available through the Ubuntu repositories by the end of August."

cancel ×

417 comments

Great... (5, Funny)

Dice (109560) | more than 5 years ago | (#24489035)

... but can I get one without Lotus Notes too?

It's a lot more sad than funny ... (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24489191)

If people start associating Linux with Lotus Notes.

Re:Great... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24489301)

To paraphrase Yoda, "Notes leads to anger. Anger leads to Notes consultants. Notes consultants lead to suffering."

Re:Great... (2, Interesting)

linumax (910946) | more than 5 years ago | (#24489337)

If you think Lotus Notes is bad, then wait until you try the Lotus Symphony (un)productivity tools that are gonna come bundled with notes.

I don't know of any OSS solution which can replace Notes in the enterprise (anyone?), but at least for the Office Suite, I recommend they go with pure OO and not some unfortunate offspring of OO+Eclipse+Lotus threesome!

Re:Great... (2, Interesting)

aliquis (678370) | more than 5 years ago | (#24489633)

Why is it so bad? Screenshots looked nice, I don't like classic word palette/toolbar freenzy. Fonts looked ugly and like 20 years too late though.

Re:Great... (5, Insightful)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 5 years ago | (#24489749)

If only there were some old Lotus ideas in this. WordPro's (and 123s) InfoBox was the best user interface module I ever used. If was very easy to work proper (with format classes) and it was quick to use. I installed it in every company i worked, and soon everyone had it, and was used to it. There are still people who now have to work with that nightmare of an UI that Microsoft provides (a modal dialog to get to all formatting options... really??), the comparably bad imitation that Openoffice is (why does open source imitate more than innovate? and wort of all: imitate Microsoft? either you can say how bad MS is, or you can imitate it. you can't have both.), or another - strangely similar - office package, who tell me how bad that thing is, compared to SmartSuite. (Yes, this is all subjective. But for the vast majority i think they (would have) liked SmartSuite more.)

But instead of just implementing the InfoBox in OpenOffice (an idea that i would pay serious money to have), they just used the sidebar click-orgy paradigm + the gnome dumb-down* paradigm. ;)
Great... idea...

* No, I do not have anything against simplifying the UI, as long as it's only for people who WANT it simple [eg. don't want to spend much, or don't have much resources for it]. Make your UI *SCALABLE* and make everyone happy. :)

Re:Great... (3, Informative)

roc97007 (608802) | more than 5 years ago | (#24489485)

Copy that. But you don't actually have to use Notes. Make sure the back end is Domino on Linux, and then just use the box for something else...

Re:Great... (4, Funny)

value_added (719364) | more than 5 years ago | (#24489517)

... but can I get one without Lotus Notes too?

In anticipation of a thousand Slashdotters nodding approvingly, I'll point out that the head of the White House IT Dept. testified (during the recent missing emails scandal) that Notes is obsolete software, and then went on to explain the problems they were having with Exchange, and why those problems couldn't be fixed. The senators, reassured the White House was using state of the art technology, nodded approvingly.

Finally! (5, Funny)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 5 years ago | (#24489041)

The 2008 will be known as the year of Lotus Notes on the desktop!

Good thing? (1)

russlar (1122455) | more than 5 years ago | (#24489347)

The 2008 will be known as the year of Lotus Notes on the desktop!

and this is a good thing.... how?

Re:Good thing? (1)

jimpop (27817) | more than 5 years ago | (#24489449)

It provides a Supportable office solution to large companies, and it keeps those large companies from paying $$ to M$.

Working link (4, Informative)

symbolset (646467) | more than 5 years ago | (#24489049)

Ibm press release [ibm.com] .

Perfect example (5, Interesting)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 5 years ago | (#24489063)

This is a perfect example on why IBM stays ahead. They adapt. They went from proprietary to open, from DOS to Linux. From punch cards to computers. Despite how "old" IBM seems, they always seem to adapt, something that some tech companies refuse to do.

Re:Perfect example (5, Funny)

motek (179836) | more than 5 years ago | (#24489117)

They adapt. They went from proprietary to open, from DOS to Linux. From punch cards to computers.

...from 'world domination' to 'also run'...

Re:Perfect example (4, Insightful)

c_forq (924234) | more than 5 years ago | (#24489203)

..from 'world domination' to 'also run'...

Eh, they seem to be doing better than Standard Oil, Carnegie Steel, and I would even say Ma Bell.

Re:Perfect example (4, Insightful)

VGPowerlord (621254) | more than 5 years ago | (#24489313)

I'm surprised you mentioned Ma Bell, as AT&T seems to have almost all its pieces back together again. It seems that they aren't such a Humpty Dumpty after all.

Re:Perfect example (2, Insightful)

whoever57 (658626) | more than 5 years ago | (#24489521)

I'm surprised you mentioned Ma Bell, as AT&T seems to have almost all its pieces back together again

I'm sure that you posted the revionist history tha the current AT&T managment would like to see, but it simply isn't true. The present AT&T is not the same as the old one. Another company assembled the pieces, not the old AT&T.

Re:Perfect example (5, Insightful)

BoChen456 (1099463) | more than 5 years ago | (#24489685)

I'm sure that you posted the revionist history tha the current AT&T managment would like to see, but it simply isn't true. The present AT&T is not the same as the old one. Another company assembled the pieces, not the old AT&T.

Who cares which company assembled all the pieces. The pieces are back together, so the old company is back together.

Re:Perfect example (2, Informative)

Apple Acolyte (517892) | more than 5 years ago | (#24489333)

Uh, if you didn't know, Standard Oil became Exxon Mobile (XOM), and I don't think they're doing too badly. . . .

Re:Perfect example (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24489459)

Bad examples... bell and standard oil are both still around under different names. AT&T is doing very well, and of course Exxon just posted the largest profit of anything ever.

Re:Perfect example (5, Interesting)

evilviper (135110) | more than 5 years ago | (#24489857)

Eh, they seem to be doing better than Standard Oil, Carnegie Steel, and I would even say Ma Bell.

Standard Oil was renamed to "Exxon", and recently posted the largest annual profits of ANY company, EVER.

Carnegie Steel became US Steel; now USX. It remains the single largest steel producer in the country. It certainly has slipped a long way from it's historic highs of world domination, but it took almost a century, nowhere nearly as quickly as IBM.

Much like the terminator, Ma Bell's shattered pieces have slowly been coming back together for the past few decades. What's worse, she's a badder bitch now than she ever was before... Much like with any disease, as the host got weaker, the viruses took over, and prospered.

Nothing wrong with that. (3, Insightful)

greenguy (162630) | more than 5 years ago | (#24489391)

Frankly, I'd rather see Microsoft in that position -- humbled, force-fed a fresh perspective, and one player among many -- than totally ground out of existence.

Re:Nothing wrong with that. (2, Funny)

motek (179836) | more than 5 years ago | (#24489639)

Frankly, I'd rather see Microsoft in that position

But of course. I can't quite imagine Ballmer with a white cat on his lap, anyway. Besides, it is just me who is destined for the true world dominance...

Re:Nothing wrong with that. (1)

uassholes (1179143) | more than 5 years ago | (#24489929)

Ground out of existance is good.

Re:Perfect example (2)

hal9000(jr) (316943) | more than 5 years ago | (#24489225)

Adapt implies "behind the curve." Something has to change before a thing can adapt.

IBM doesn't stay ahead at all. They have learned to, as you say, adapt to market forces. How much leverage they actually have, however, is another matter.

Re:Perfect example (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 5 years ago | (#24489275)

This is a perfect example on why IBM stays ahead. They adapt.

My impression is that they're just big enough to make huge blunders and still come back. Companies like IBM, Intel, Microsoft, nVidia etc. aren't going to just bend over and die by making one bad generation or getting kicked out of one market. My impression is that they've not been around so long because they adapt, but rather that they've had to adapt so much because they've been around so long.

Re:Perfect example (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24489365)

IBM are pretty realistic and surprisingly agile when it comes to this kind of stuff. Generally they go with 'the right tool for the job'. I've seen Red Hat, Ubuntu, Suse at IBM, as well as Macs. Also every flavour of Windows, except Vista!

Re:Perfect example (1)

The Iso (1088207) | more than 5 years ago | (#24489453)

From punch cards to computers.

Punch card systems were computers.

Re:Perfect example (5, Insightful)

ChrisA90278 (905188) | more than 5 years ago | (#24489667)

IBM has been a technology company for over 100 years. The company was founded in 1896, back when information technology was a new idea. I think they learned about "change" long ago. They adapted to the invention of the vacuum tube and every other new technology of the 20th century. How many other tech companies from the late 1800's are still around?

Re:Perfect example (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24489887)

actually, this might have more to do with the old feud. After all, Microsoft stole the bounty right under IBM's nose. This might be IBM's way of returning the favor :)

Re:Perfect example (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24489967)

This is a perfect example on why IBM stays ahead.

I would not say that, since IBM recently does not shows any significant activity on OSS level. Also I do not remember what IBM has been not fucked up. They developed SWT for Java (a pissing off package that acquires all the crap from AWT architecture), AIX OS â" we all know that it is, their bastardized OpenOffice.org is just not what we really want and now uberugly Lotus Notes on the desktop...

I do hope IBM could get it right, but I have too much skepticism on their products and final result, that is produced by a huge clusterfuck of people.

Predictions? I think, this will do nothing much.

Re:Perfect example (1)

AmazingRuss (555076) | more than 5 years ago | (#24490073)

"This is a perfect example on why IBM stays ahead. They adapt. " ...and as a result of their age and adaptations, they've developed more flavors of suck than any other company.

Woo Hoo! (3, Informative)

clang_jangle (975789) | more than 5 years ago | (#24489067)

The link in TFS didn't work for me (they may have fixed it by now), but here's the marketwatch article [marketwatch.com] and BigBlue's press release [ibm.com] .
Oh, and uh, WOOHOOOOOOOO!!!!!

Story Missing In action (2, Funny)

hasbeard (982620) | more than 5 years ago | (#24489069)

I not I'm not supposed to read the article, but when I tried to the site gives a "story not found" message.

C64 (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24489109)

IBM should get together with the people who created Commodore 64 and see about modifying it for a networked business environment. We already know the C64 is suitable for networked environments because people have already abandoned Vista to have lan parties on their Commodore 64s. T

Print Link (and commentary) (0, Troll)

iamhigh (1252742) | more than 5 years ago | (#24489111)

Register print article [theregister.co.uk]

That link actually works.

Now that I got a few informative's, lets get a few flaimbait's...

I went to Canonical and "bought" (put in cart) a year of Ubuntu Desktop Support... $293!!!! #)%}&"#^*! That's about as bad as Vista Ultimate!

Server Support was $881!! THAT IS MORE THAN W2K3!

So why would I, a self admitted Windows Admin, ever want to switch? Surely I am going to want more than "community support" if I ever dare put a production ERP system on Linux. But if that costs more than the Windows Server I know and have used daily for 10 years (as have the other IT staff), from a business standpoint, why bother?

Re:Print Link (and commentary) (1)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 5 years ago | (#24489213)

"iamhigh" said:

So why would I, a self admitted Windows Admin, ever want to switch?

I think you answered your own question...

Re:Print Link (and commentary) (1)

gparent (1242548) | more than 5 years ago | (#24489291)

Yeah, and the answer is that he doesn't. $293 is ridiculous.

Re:Print Link (and commentary) (1)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 5 years ago | (#24489461)

I'm sure he's currently paying Microsoft support fees per desktop and per server.
How is he NOT comparing apples and washing machines?

Re:Print Link (and commentary) (1)

gparent (1242548) | more than 5 years ago | (#24490007)

For a single desktop, he, he's not currently paying support fees. If he wanted to put Linux on his entire network, then yeah, he'd be paying for licenses and probably support.

Re:Print Link (and commentary) (4, Insightful)

NNKK (218503) | more than 5 years ago | (#24489279)

How much support does Microsoft give you for those purchase prices without paying more for additional support? Almost none? I thought so.

What parts of the system does Microsoft's support cover? Just the core OS, which is largely useless by itself? Yeah...

What does Ubuntu's support cover? Well, it's for a year, and it includes the "core" OS and all of the hundreds of applications that come with it.

How much would you pay for Windows with a year of core OS support, plus a year of support for several major third-party applicationswithout which you can't really do anything? Thousands? Perhaps tens of thousands?

Where's the problem again?

Re:Print Link (and commentary) (5, Insightful)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 5 years ago | (#24489469)

That's the point I think most people don't understand. Why you buy Vista Ultimate, it doesn't entitle you to any support. You get one or two phone calls, and you have to use them within the first 90 days of registering your software. After that you're on your own. $59 for each support request. If your computer came with Vista installed, you don't get any free support from MS, they want you to call the company who manufactured your computer. How is a company with access to the source code for windows supposed to give you proper support? At least when you pay Canonical for support, they are actually prepared to answer your questions without any additional fees, and are actually able to issue software patches against the product, as most (all??) of it is open source.

Re:Print Link (and commentary) (1)

hal9000(jr) (316943) | more than 5 years ago | (#24489295)

Let me be the first to point out that in addition to the cost of Windows Vista and Server, you still have to pay for support, doncha?

However, you make a good point. If the price of Linux is more than the price of Windows (not including ancillary costs like training, software licenses, longer maintenance periods during the honeymoon period, etc), why switch indeed? If you are a savvy linux admin, the switch might be more compelling to you.

If anyone marks your comment as flamebait, then they are simply bigots.

Enterprise Company Support (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24489325)

If you would read the fine print, it states IBM will support the OS. Not the community so you are paying for support from an Enterprise Company that stands behind the product by putting their own Brand on the line.

What does Windows support cost? (4, Insightful)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 5 years ago | (#24489369)

Windows support ain't free and it's largely useless in my experience. It's either "try rebooting" or Nothing to do with us, you need to contact the third party" buck passing.

PS: Linux support isn't compulsory, the cost of the Windows license is...

Re:Print Link (and commentary) (1)

TheModelEskimo (968202) | more than 5 years ago | (#24489373)

Isn't that just how the market works? Microsoft can afford to be cheaper. Canonical is working against the fact that people don't have to *buy* Ubuntu in the first place, and community support is already available, source code is open, etc.

Re:Print Link (and commentary) (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24489423)

Server Support was $881!! THAT IS MORE THAN W2K3!

They don't charge support on a per server basis(this may be a shock to you)
You can set up as many servers on your network as you like, they still only charge you $881

For an enterprise Class network you need a DNS server, AD server, File server, a mail server, database server, web server( bother internet and intranet).

There are many more to add to the list, but those are just the basics.

Re:Print Link (and commentary) (2, Interesting)

geekoid (135745) | more than 5 years ago | (#24489429)

Compare there services.
Lower CTO. You need fewer people to admin Linux machines..or UNIX machines for that matter.
5 to 1 I believe was the ratio.

that 881 and 293 is nothing for a business. It's small potatoes.

How much is WIN2k, OS and equal support?

  I question you overall effectiveness if the little of price is what you base a purchase decision on.

Re:Print Link (and commentary) (5, Insightful)

magus_melchior (262681) | more than 5 years ago | (#24489437)

So iamhigh's argument is: Canonical's support contracts are too costly and doesn't give Windows desktops/server admins any reason to switch.

His argument rests on this straw man: reduced cost is allegedly the only reason to switch to Linux. This ignores Linux's advantages such as lower hardware/software cost, access to source code and thus customizability. It also ignores the possibility of adding a Linux desktop or server for testing purposes.

Notice: He doesn't tell you how much a Windows Vista Open License costs in addition to a full support contract (!) from Microsoft or partner vendors, let alone a Windows Server 2003/2008 CAL + contract. Notice that it would be costly to him in terms of both time and resources to transition to Linux, and so he wouldn't be motivated to switch over anyway. Nowhere should a Linux evangelist ever demand that all Windows shops convert to Linux, for this reason. No one's forcing him to use Linux if Windows is working just fine, so he's mostly ranting about nothing. Worst case, he's a Microsoft evangelist.

I'm sorry, but he doesn't deserve those Insightful mods. Ironic that he predicted Flamebait mods, but as of right now no one's tagged him as such.

Re:Print Link (and commentary) (1)

alexborges (313924) | more than 5 years ago | (#24489555)

I think this discussion stems from the fact that cannonical is in south.Africa and uses the British pound as refference, plus the cost of the work hour in commonwealth countries is really high. I'm willing to bet that cannonicals prices are way better than the same sla for windows down there or in Australia or England

Re:Print Link (and commentary) (1)

nhaines (622289) | more than 5 years ago | (#24489641)

Actually, Canonical is registered in the Isle of Man and headquartered in London.

Canonical's phone support is based in Canada I believe.

Re:Print Link (and commentary) (1)

alexborges (313924) | more than 5 years ago | (#24489863)

Why thanks for clearing that up. That being the case, no, I don't get why the steep prices.their competition is much cheaper

Re:Print Link (and commentary) (0, Offtopic)

registrar (1220876) | more than 5 years ago | (#24489975)

I'm sorry, but he doesn't deserve those Insightful mods. Ironic that he predicted Flamebait mods, but as of right now no one's tagged him as such.

One straightforward way of getting moderated highly is to insult the moderators' intelligence. Usually "I know I'll get modded down but..." or "slashdot fanbois of course will mod me down but..."

I wish posts were moderated on their substance, not the comments to the moderators.

Re:Print Link (and commentary) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24489491)

Surely I am going to want more than "community support" if I ever dare put a production ERP system on Linux.

Since when has corporate support ever been better than community support?

Re:Print Link (and commentary) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24489497)

Wait a minute. I went to Microsoft's site and found that a single support issue costs $259. Not a year of support, but one single issue. 5 issues costs $1,289.

At those prices, why would I dare put a production ERP system on Windows? It costs way more than the Linux OS I know and have used daily for 10 years (as have other IT staff), from a business standpoint, why bother?

Re:Print Link (and commentary) (5, Informative)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | more than 5 years ago | (#24489503)

$881 for a year of server support, versus $500 per seat for Windows 2003 Server licenses and a year of rolled-in support, plus several thousand more to renew support, plus more if you add more servers.

Re:Print Link (and commentary) (3, Insightful)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 5 years ago | (#24489577)

Okay how many support calls do you get with Windows support. I think our current package is like four calls a year but that is for developers and not the server.
Next does the price for support go up per cal?
When you want to add more users what will the cost be?
Want to use a VM and add run more servers on the box? What will that cost?
Want to add a backup server? What about development server?
Unless you are using the entire Microsoft software stack why not move to Linux? Of course there is the added cost of retraining you to use Linux but as an Admin learning Linux is worth while if for no other reason that a good Linux Admin will find it pretty easy to move into Solaris or AIX as well as Linux.

Also frankly Linux support is optional for a Windows server it is mandatory.

Who uses support? (2, Insightful)

reidconti (219106) | more than 5 years ago | (#24489587)

Seriously? If you want a professional to do work for you, it's called "professional services", costs an arm and a leg, and only occasionally does something other than totally hose up your environment.

The "support" for most software (and even hardware) goes about as far as "is it plugged in?"

The only support I ever use is hardware support, and half the time, even with Sun, you have to tell then what part to send you.

Does anybody really sit on the phone with IBM, Sun, Microsoft, to try to troubleshoot a complex problem?

Re:Print Link (and commentary) (1)

ACMENEWSLLC (940904) | more than 5 years ago | (#24489613)

Is that really more than IBM Windows support? IBM's rather expensive, but they bring some awesome and dedicated folks to the table.

My *nix servers (Mandriva, CentOS, Ubuntu, SUSE, others) have no support purchased -- as I don't need it.

For me, Google is my friend.

Re:Print Link (and commentary) (3, Interesting)

spisska (796395) | more than 5 years ago | (#24489679)

I went to Canonical and "bought" (put in cart) a year of Ubuntu Desktop Support... $293!!!! [...] That's about as bad as Vista Ultimate!

Server Support was $881!! THAT IS MORE THAN W2K3!

What you're buying is support -- i.e. a voice on the telephone and expertise to get your system running, repaired, upgraded, etc. You're not buying software, and you're certainly not buying licenses.

Canonical support, much like similar arrangements from Red Hat et al, is not on a per seat or per processor basis.

Yes, paying $293 per year for support of a single desktop may seem as exorbitant as the cost of Vista. But what if you roll out 20 machines? If you go the Vista route that's thousands just for the OS, and additional thousands or tens of thousands for the software you actually need.

But with 20 machines, your Canonical support costs are now less than $15 per machine-year. And the support contract comes with an SLA [canonical.com] . How much does MS support cost? How much is a seat license for MS Exchange-related products?

How do these costs compare when you move from 20 systems to 100? Or 1,000?

Do you still think you can compare support costs to license costs?

Re:Print Link (and commentary) (1)

fluffman86 (1006119) | more than 5 years ago | (#24489845)

$293 isn't really that bad for on call support. I charge $40/hour on call for one of my long time customers -- a church with 5 PCs. Average cost for a year for them is about $2000. So yeah, the Ubuntu support is actually cheaper than Windows support in my case.

Re:Print Link (and commentary) (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24489865)

If you administer a Windows network, I don't see how you can describe yourself as 'IT'...without blushing that is.

Re:Print Link (and commentary) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24489867)

You slip the real answer to your question in at the end.

Your time is vastly more valuable than the software cost. I have no idea which Win2k3 edition you are talking about, but let's assume it is the 32-bit web server edition for $400. Server Support for Ubuntu costs $881. If your time is worth $40/hr, then you blow through the price difference in 12 hours.

So the real question to ask is with which product can you get work done faster? Even if Ubuntu support were free, if you spend more than 20 hours of extra time during the year making it work, you have still lost money.

Since you say you have 10 years of of experience with Windows Server (and presumably not as much or none with Linux), you would be stupid to choose Ubuntu. The price of the software is irrelevant.

Re:Print Link (and commentary) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24489915)

Sigh. Just, sigh. So your Corporate XP support contract covers MS Office for less than $500 per license per year? And less than $1000 dollars for Enterprise Level support for W2k3?

Now I'm really pissed at my M$ sales rep. I'm really getting burnt. A$$holes.

Re:Print Link (and commentary) (1)

Brain Damaged Bogan (1006835) | more than 5 years ago | (#24489941)

why would a good sys admin need the support? our sys admin handles our debian boxes which run php/mysql/various versions of coldfusion, and even the gentoo box that the previous sys admin (idiot) set up as our DNS server without paying for any support licences...

Commodore 64 (1, Troll)

stevedmc (1065590) | more than 5 years ago | (#24489127)

IBM should get together with the people who created Commodore 64 and see about modifying it for a networked business environment. We already know the C64 is suitable for networked environments because people have already abandoned Vista to have lan parties on their Commodore 64s.

I gotta say (3, Insightful)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 5 years ago | (#24489133)

...Microsoft-free personal computing choices...

Has a nice ring to it, don't it?

Re:I gotta say (3, Insightful)

Nerdfest (867930) | more than 5 years ago | (#24489953)

It sure does. That nasty part is that as bad as MS has been, If IBM was still dominant, Personal computing would probably be an order of magnitude more expensive and far more limited. I think if MS hadn't come to prominence, things would be even worse than they are now.

They still suck of course.

IBM still sour (1)

dimeglio (456244) | more than 5 years ago | (#24489153)

I guess they still need to avenge Microsoft's dropping of OS/2 back in the 90's.

Kudos to IBM and hope they'll start opening up and bundling Notes as well.

Please leave Lotus out! (0)

techmuse (160085) | more than 5 years ago | (#24489155)

Once upon a time, I worked at a company that used Lotus Notes as their primary mail client. The interface was horrible, ugly, cluttered, and didn't follow any of the conventions of the host OS (Windows), or of any other possible host OS. It also wasn't particularly usable at less than full screen. Fortunately, they also maintained an IMAP server, so I was able to avoid using Notes completely. Ubuntu without Lotus would be worth much more to me than Ubuntu with Lotus.

Re:Please leave Lotus out! (1)

chris_mahan (256577) | more than 5 years ago | (#24489385)

I work at a company that uses lotus notes, and all you say is true. We unfortunately don't maintain IMAP server, so there is unending grief. Ubuntu with Notes is like using a Ferrari to haul fertilizer.

Time to learn Linux (4, Insightful)

Howitzer86 (964585) | more than 5 years ago | (#24489157)

I guess I should start learning linux. Maybe buy a few books to study and frequent the irc channels. It finally looks like it might have a shot at replacing Windows.

Nine To Five (1, Insightful)

westlake (615356) | more than 5 years ago | (#24489171)

Canonical, which sells subscription support for Ubuntu, a Linux operating system that scores high marks on usability and 'the cool factor..."
.

I stopped reading right there.

If there is anything less "cool" on this world than the corporate desktop I have yet to find it.

Re:Nine To Five (2, Insightful)

MrMista_B (891430) | more than 5 years ago | (#24489207)

Um, since when is Ubuntu a 'corporate desktop'?

Re:Nine To Five (1)

gparent (1242548) | more than 5 years ago | (#24489315)

So you stopped reading at the true part? The same people who use Vista because of the shiny UI will be the ones using Ubuntu because it comes preinstalled with Compiz, and plenty of fanboys around the planet praise Ubuntu because of it, even though it can be installed on any distro as long as you have a X server

Re:Nine To Five (2, Informative)

flerchin (179012) | more than 5 years ago | (#24489395)

Hardy with Compiz and advanced desktop effects is pretty damned cool. I'm getting converts daily on my university campus just from fellow geeks saying "What is that!?"

Re:Nine To Five (1)

VanCardboardbox (1265220) | more than 5 years ago | (#24489481)

You should have kept reading as you appear to not know what Ubuntu is.

Maybe it's just where I am (australia)... (4, Insightful)

sleeponthemic (1253494) | more than 5 years ago | (#24489183)

But I've never met any "common man" family with a linux based PC. I find it strange to hear that previous article on penetration of linux in new PCs in the UK up to 2.8%. As good as linux desktops are, I still can't quite believe that Joe Bloggs with zero knowledge will comprehend the virtues and not be seduced by the fact that almost everybody around him is running windows
 
As I say, it might just be "where I am". I can't recall anywhere generic selling linux based desktops here so no real surprise I don't know anybody who fits this bill.

Re:Maybe it's just where I am (australia)... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24489741)

Maybe one reason the adoption in the UK is higher is that in the late 80's - early 90's the Amiga was very popular in this country (more so than in the USA) and people of a certain age will remember a time where you got an OS that actually worked.

For me going from Amiga 1200 to Windows 95 was one of the most tragic things ever...

Re:Maybe it's just where I am (australia)... (4, Insightful)

freeasinrealale (928218) | more than 5 years ago | (#24489851)

Well I live in Canada. And yes, 'joe sixpack' or the common man here in NA doesn't really care about 'Linux' or 'Windows'. I am a part owner in a family run brewery here in Ontario. We brew and sell craft beer or 'real ales'. Recently I was at local watering hole that sells Big Name Swill. One customer was amazed at how our brew tasted fantastic, reminded him of how good his beer had tasted back in ole Blighty. After finishing the real ale, he ordered up his regular - Bud Light. (We price ours the same as regular beers). As A Linux fanboy for many a year, I have also tamed my enthusiasm for converting Win users to Linux. Most people don't want to know what an OS is. Like a PVR - switch it on - and it works. Linux will succeed when the big boys start marketing it, just like the 'swill beers' that now dominate the world markets. Me - I'm happy with our small base of real ale fanatics.

Re:Maybe it's just where I am (australia)... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24490045)

I didn't understand the beer analogy. Can I have a slashdotish car analogy please?

pressure (1)

omar.sahal (687649) | more than 5 years ago | (#24489199)

Mr Gates you can't compete! Linux has opened the market on price (MID/Sub notebook). It has opened the possibility of other architectures, (MIPS etc). Is on mobile devices, where is your margin on these systems Mr Gates.

Re:pressure (1)

omar.sahal (687649) | more than 5 years ago | (#24489463)

Seriously with the kind flexibility Linux gives the computing world, it will invent (and has) new markets (super computing clusters, cloud computing are examples). Microsoft can't compete with this (and can't kill it).

Once you get rid of Microsoft... (5, Funny)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 5 years ago | (#24489317)

...how do you get rid of IBM?

Re:Once you get rid of Microsoft... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24489487)

Skinner: No, that's the beautiful part. When wintertime rolls around, the IBMs simply freeze to death.

Re:Once you get rid of Microsoft... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24489511)

that's the beautiful part: once winter comes, the orangutans all freeze to death. :)

Re:Once you get rid of Microsoft... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24489693)

I thought we already had ?!

Re:Once you get rid of Microsoft... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24489773)

1. Co-operate with IBM to get rid of Microsoft
2. Ignore IBM. We have the source and don't need them.
3. IBM goes bankrupt.
4. ???
5. Profit!

Re:Once you get rid of Microsoft... (2, Funny)

evilviper (135110) | more than 5 years ago | (#24489919)

Once you get rid of Microsoft... ...how do you get rid of IBM?

You convince them to get back into the PC business...

this is it! (1)

alexborges (313924) | more than 5 years ago | (#24489367)

this is it guys, The rest is up to us.

The future is free.

in other words (3, Interesting)

roc97007 (608802) | more than 5 years ago | (#24489421)

Either the url is borked or the story no longer exists, so guessing from what we can read:

"The slow adoption of Vista among businesses and budget-conscious CIOs, coupled with the proven success of a new type of Microsoft-free PC in every region, provides an extraordinary window of opportunity for Linux."

So, how I'm reading this is "The slow adoption of Vista provides an opening for Symphony to increase market share" which is a perfectly reasonable strategy for the manager of a product line. (Besides, if you don't like it, you can always download OpenOffice.)

It could also mean "The slow adoption of Vista is cutting into our hardware sales, so we are looking at alternatives to get units out the door" and shipping more copies of Symphony is a happy byproduct.

Either way, it's more new systems that are not running Winders. I don't see a downside.

This could also be read as IBM stating publicly that Vista jumped the shark. ...which is waaaay different from a bunch of geeks in Slashdot saying it.

Re:in other words (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 5 years ago | (#24489579)

The slow adoption of Vista is cutting into our hardware sales, so we are looking at alternatives to get units out the door" and shipping more copies of Symphony is a happy byproduct.

I doubt that has anything to do with it. IBM sold their desktop/laptop business to Lenovo a few years back, and the only computers they currently sell are servers. I don't think anybody would run Vista on a server, nor would IBM sell one with Vista pre-installed.

Year of the... (1)

chubs730 (1095151) | more than 5 years ago | (#24489531)

So I guess we win right? The Year of Finally Relaxing is 2008.

2008 will be the year of the Linux Desktop (1)

Nimey (114278) | more than 5 years ago | (#24489559)

As Bullwinkle would say, "this time for sure!".

symphony? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24489565)

What is symphony? Never heard of it....
Seriously, does anyone use Lotus products anymore? I thought they died out in the 90's...

Good on IBM (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24489599)

It is good they are now giving both consumers, small businesses and large scale company's the option to choose Linux over windows... It's pretty clear from a shareholder perspective why they are doing it and once again it shows their leadership in the market. Like anything though it will require time :)

OS/2? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24489689)

Haven't they been pushing a Microsoft free desktop since they used PC-DOS instead of MS-DOS? And then pushed OS/2 instead of Windows?

Screenshots (1)

camcorder (759720) | more than 5 years ago | (#24489839)

Now let's see if they will also push screenshots of Lotus Symphony Microsoft-Free as well.

They must still be ticked off... (3, Funny)

TheNucleon (865817) | more than 5 years ago | (#24490021)

...about that OS/2 thing.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...