×

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's Answer To Windows 7 Is Ubuntu Linux

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the riding-the-pr-coattails dept.

IBM 863

An anonymous reader writes "It looks like IBM isn't much of a friend of Microsoft's anymore. Today IBM announced an extension of its Microsoft-Free PC effort together with Canonical Ubuntu Linux. This is the same thing that was announced a few weeks back for Africa (a program that began a year ago), and now it's available in the US. The big push is that IBM claims it will cost up to $2,000 for a business to move to Windows 7. They argue that moving to Linux is cheaper."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

863 comments

IBM's hardware vendor mind is taking over (2, Informative)

Oblong_Cheese (1002842) | more than 4 years ago | (#29816747)

If you reduce the cost of software to zero and compete only on the hardware, you shut out some people from the market and trample others with your behemoth size.

Re:IBM's hardware vendor mind is taking over (5, Funny)

AJWM (19027) | more than 4 years ago | (#29816803)

Hey, if Microsoft wants to take on IBM with its own tactics and give away a PC with every copy of Windows, that's fine with me.

Re:IBM's hardware vendor mind is taking over (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29816939)

Oh my god im going to poop!
 
There'll be 'So' much poop!

Re:IBM's hardware vendor mind is taking over (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29817157)

Steady on, Steve!

You'll still have your Xbox division.

Re:IBM's hardware vendor mind is taking over (2, Funny)

capnkr (1153623) | more than 4 years ago | (#29817013)

But... if you decided to put Linux on your Microstop CloudPC, will you then have to send a hardware rebate to MS?
;)

Re:IBM's hardware vendor mind is taking over (3, Interesting)

md65536 (670240) | more than 4 years ago | (#29817501)

Well... Microsoft's tactics over the past decade have been even better than that (or worse, depending on your perspective). They've stated that they were aiming for cheaper and cheaper hardware, with the cost of computers focusing more on software and support. So, let someone else worry about "giving away" the PCs. I think they've literally stated they were foreseeing a future where the hardware is free.

I guess they enjoy the effects of market competition when it comes to *hardware*.

Re:IBM's hardware vendor mind is taking over (4, Insightful)

pushf popf (741049) | more than 4 years ago | (#29816807)

If you reduce the cost of software to zero and compete only on the hardware, you shut out some people from the market and trample others with your behemoth size.

Yeah, what a shame.

Re:IBM's hardware vendor mind is taking over (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29817347)

It may not be immediately obvious, but my statement was never meant to support or detract IBMs strategy, merely an observation of what could occur.

Re:IBM's hardware vendor mind is taking over (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29816895)

IBM's retarded. What a garbage article. Windows 7 requires less from your hardware, and sorry Linux is not always cheaper (free is not cheap).

Re:IBM's hardware vendor mind is taking over (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29816951)

IBM's retarded. What a garbage article. Windows 7 requires less from your hardware, and sorry Linux is not always cheaper (free is not cheap).

Less than what? If I really wanted to, I could fit a minimal-but-working Linux system on a floppy disk. Can you do that with Win 7? Be kinda nice if you settled that before talking about which OS has larger minimum hardware requirements...

Re:IBM's hardware vendor mind is taking over (1, Flamebait)

Jurily (900488) | more than 4 years ago | (#29817231)

If I really wanted to, I could fit a minimal-but-working Linux system on a floppy disk.

My custom-compiled kernel is 2.6 MB after optimize-for-size. I think you're in the wrong decade.

Of course, I don't consider it "working" unless it has all the drivers I need. YMMV.

Re:IBM's hardware vendor mind is taking over (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29816975)

less from hardware than what? cheaper than what? huh? who?

Re:IBM's hardware vendor mind is taking over (1, Insightful)

capnkr (1153623) | more than 4 years ago | (#29817057)

... Windows 7 requires less from your hardware...

'Less than' what...? Vista??? GMAFB. Modern Linux distros @ default installation settings run just fine in 1/4 of the hardware a similar MS setup requires.

Back to Redmond, shill...

Re:IBM's hardware vendor mind is taking over (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29816903)

Did you know that Germany is also called DoucheLand and their currency is the DoucheMark? Krauts are a bunch of douches. Now you know!

Re:IBM's hardware vendor mind is taking over (5, Funny)

Reyendo (1451201) | more than 4 years ago | (#29817129)

Did you know that Germany is also called DoucheLand and their currency is the DoucheMark? Krauts are a bunch of douches. Now you know!

And knowing is half the battle.

Re:IBM's hardware vendor mind is taking over (4, Insightful)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 4 years ago | (#29816987)

That assumes that the value of the software is the same, value being usability, performance, etc. For netbooks, servers, and small dedicated devices I don't think Microsoft can compete at all.

I'm all for Linux, but it can't completely replace Microsoft just yet. I use it for almost everything. However, there is still some development that I find easier to do with a MS operating system. Granted it's stripped down high performance version of XP, but it ain't Ubuntu.

Now if nearly all of the programs being sold for the Microsoft platform worked equally well on a Linux platform then I believe that MS really could be shut out of the market with companies like IBM switching from Windows by default, to anything else.

Unfortunately, I find a lot of the open source offerings for Linux lacking compared to what it is available for Microsoft. I can deal with terrible user interface and poor documentation on some of the stuff, but I doubt I represent anything but a small portion of the market.

This is a real slap to Microsoft, but I hardly think this alone is really shutting them out of the market.

Re:IBM's hardware vendor mind is taking over (4, Insightful)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#29817097)

Sorry bud but I don't understand your point. What's wrong with IBM recommending people switch to Linux? It was IBM who recommended Microsoft DOS originally..... now they are simply recommending a different product to run on the PC platform

I'm all for giving people choices.

Re:IBM's hardware vendor mind is taking over (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29817467)

Guess you haven't heard. IBM no longer sells desktop PCs, workstations, or laptops. They sold that division off to Lenovo years ago and only make servers now.

MS Response (5, Funny)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 4 years ago | (#29816779)

Microsoft responded by stating they are happy IBM has found someone new, that's just great, and hey by the way MS is engaged to Dell who is hotter than IBM anyway so there.

Re:MS Response (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29816995)

Microsoft responded by stating they are happy IBM has found someone new, that's just great, and hey by the way MS is engaged to Dell who is hotter than IBM anyway so there.

IBM's response was, "Dell is a fat disease ridden skank infected malware and bloatware."

Re:MS Response (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29817349)

"Dell is a fat disease ridden skank infected malware and bloatware."

Being so positive about Dell almost makes you a fanboy.

Re:MS Response (5, Funny)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 4 years ago | (#29817115)

Someone should tell MS that their fiance hasn't been entirely faithful [dell.com].

Re:MS Response (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 4 years ago | (#29817249)

Someone should tell MS that their fiance hasn't been entirely faithful [dell.com].

It's okay. Dell asked MS about an "open relationship", and MS was okay with that as long as Dell signed the prenup.

Re:MS Response (1)

Linker3000 (626634) | more than 4 years ago | (#29817449)

...and MS has only granted Dell a 1 person CAL (Companion Association Licence) so they can't be seen with other people.

Re:MS Response (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29817259)

Microsoft responded by stating they are happy IBM has found someone new, that's just great, and hey by the way MS is engaged to Dell who is hotter than IBM anyway so there.

So what you are basically saying is that Steve Ballmer thinks that the corporate equivalent of Rosie O'Donnell is way hotter than than the corporate equivalent of Rosanne Barr? I thought he had learned something from that monkey dance video.

Can't Lock Linux Down (2, Insightful)

hofmny (1517499) | more than 4 years ago | (#29816797)

I think one of the hindrances for businesses to move to Linux on the desktop is the lack of programs for Linux that allow the complete lock-down of the desktop. In Windows, there are many applications that let you control which users can access different areas in the GUI, well beyond Windows Access Control.
.
I don't know of anything similar in the Linux Desktop Environment to Windows Access Control or the other programs that are out there. Does anyone else?

Re:Can't Lock Linux Down (2, Insightful)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 4 years ago | (#29816871)

If you control the machines what is the issue?
Just change the permissions, or remove the stuff or make it not even executable.

The only reason apps exist for windows to do this stuff is because of the incompetence of the average windows sysadmin.

Re:Can't Lock Linux Down (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29816955)

Windows: hire the most incompetent lowest paid sys admin, buy program. Someone gets around it. Blame program. buy another program
Linux: uh, hire the most incompetent lowest paid sys admin, someone gets around it, fire sys admin.
Next: Goto Windows

Re:Can't Lock Linux Down (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29817453)

The only reason apps exist for windows to do this stuff is because of the incompetence of the average windows sysadmin.

Isn't that one of the main selling points of Windows? That any idiot can run it, therefore why pay for expertise? Is that not what appeals to the average PHB?

Of course, when there is a security problem or otherwise an instance of the shit hitting the fan, this strategy falls apart with record speed. To any philosopher, that would be obvious, since it was a recipe for mediocrity from the very beginning. But most people are surprised and downright shocked by things that are obvious and predictable to the philosopher. It's almost as though they have a need to be.

Re:Can't Lock Linux Down (3, Informative)

GoochOwnsYou (1343661) | more than 4 years ago | (#29816945)

A standard user account doesn't exactly have alot of control to begin with. The way Windows does things is they open up access and lock things down while in the UNIX word its all locked down and open things up (i.e. sudo)

Your point is only valid if you want to prevent a use from changing his wallpaper, screen savers and the like. There are (expensive) tools out there but dont handle very well.

Also in GNOME you have gconf and can put custom settings into a SOE very easily.

Re:Can't Lock Linux Down (2, Informative)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 4 years ago | (#29817049)

Yeah it is so hard:

gconftool-2 --direct --config-source xml:readwrite:/etc/gconf/gconf.xml.mandatory --type string --set /desktop/gnome/background/picture_filename /usr/share/backgrounds/warty-final-ubuntu.png

gconftool-2 --direct --config-source xml:readwrite:/etc/gconf/gconf.xml.mandatory --type string --set /desktop/gnome/interface/gtk_theme Human

gconftool-2 --direct --config-source xml:readwrite:/etc/gconf/gconf.xml.mandatory --type string --set /desktop/gnome/interface/icon_theme Human

Re:Can't Lock Linux Down (2, Insightful)

Nefarious Wheel (628136) | more than 4 years ago | (#29817127)

Your point is only valid if you want to prevent a use from changing his wallpaper, screen savers and the like.

I don't think that's entirely true, I can think of an exception or two. Particularly where the workstation may be used in financial dealings with publicly-listed companies. In some cases you do not want people to fiddle with the settings of applications, to - for example - change the location of an audit log. Well, you might want to, but the financial regulator might raise an eyebrow over it.

Re:Can't Lock Linux Down (4, Funny)

hofmny (1517499) | more than 4 years ago | (#29817177)

I used to work for a company that locked things down so much, that if you wanted to increase the speed of your mouse, you had to call the IT department, LOL.

This is a bit obsessive, but it's their prerogative. Either its not that easy to prevent a user from accessing the mouse control screen in Gnome or KDE, or most administrators are "Windows Trained" and wouldn't know the steps to lock it down (most just run a 3rd party app that does it for them anyway).

Re:Can't Lock Linux Down (3, Informative)

Techman83 (949264) | more than 4 years ago | (#29817065)

Huh wah?? Obviously you must be from a parallel universe, rather uninformed or a clever troll. I manage the desktop branch of a medium - large sized organisation and the amount of pain involved in locking machines down in the distributed workforce age is quite painful. Sure there are apps to aid this (we employ ZenWorks) and they do work really well, but you can't have used anything more then a default install of Ubuntu. Honestly the amount of fine grained control mixed with sudo (neither run-as or UAC are sudo, they impersonate another user rather then privilege escalation) you get with *nix environment is leaps and bounds ahead of Windows. Admittedly group policy has some nice default templates, but as soon as you step an inch outside the norm (which is hard not to) be prepared for pain, so much so that the only place we employ GP is on our Terminal Services boxes. Even then a lot of the "Lock Down" is pretty much just obscuring things without actually adding any security.

Nice try, but I suggest you undertake a bit of a learning curve and you will be enlightened.

Re:Can't Lock Linux Down (1)

Nefarious Wheel (628136) | more than 4 years ago | (#29817181)

I kind of like the approach taken by Microsoft internally, when I had a contract with them a few years ago. "Here's your laptop. Nothing's locked down. If you screw it up, dig yourself out. If you screw it up for others, expect them to speak to you about it".

Re:Can't Lock Linux Down (1)

Techman83 (949264) | more than 4 years ago | (#29817403)

Which probably works rather well in a Technology based company. But in an Industry where technology is far from the focus and appears as "cost" of doing business to the higher ups and a proportion of the users have trouble using their mice, love screen savers and porn, your thinking has to change. Then there are viruses, malware, smitfraud etc that are so prevalent in even the most "innocent" of sites, you just can't blame them for having a laptop popping up with Antivirus 2009 etc.

For our next implementation I want to lock things down further as currently it's hard with the types of Apps people require that need admin rights (unless our department pays to get things re-written this won't change and we don't have the budget for that!). I'm thinking sudowin [sourceforge.net] may be the answer.

Re:Can't Lock Linux Down (2, Informative)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 4 years ago | (#29817487)

I would suggest you try figuring out why these apps require admin, using sysmon and regmon. Most of these apps are just poorly made and the users need write permissions to some file or reg key. Once you give them that the app works just fine.

Re:Can't Lock Linux Down (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29817073)

Fine-grained permissions are somewhat difficult. Locking everything down is really easy: just don't give the user root/sudo permissions.

Re:Can't Lock Linux Down (1)

Linker3000 (626634) | more than 4 years ago | (#29817471)

Fine-grained permissions are somewhat difficult. Locking everything down is really easy: just don't give the user a computer.

FTFY

Re:Can't Lock Linux Down (2, Insightful)

keatonguy (1001680) | more than 4 years ago | (#29817091)

Not true, you can lock down a GNOME desktop. This is not to say there isn't a learning curve to it, but I have done it for a production system that serves over 80 thin-clients in a K-12 charter school. It's all in the documentation (one of my favorite things about Linux's core systems, I might add).

Re:Can't Lock Linux Down (3, Insightful)

phunster (701222) | more than 4 years ago | (#29817111)

There are indeed a lack of external programs to lock down the desktop. That's because that kind of thing is built into Linux. ACLs, permissions, SELINUX and on and on.

If you favour Windows, that's fine, to each his own. But please don't spread the MS cool-aid without actually knowing what you are talking about.

Re:Can't Lock Linux Down (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29817131)

And it's roll-your-own support with Linux. You have to rely on elitist coders, whereas with Microsoft you pay a fixed price but at least know where you stand with an actual business contract.

Re:Can't Lock Linux Down (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29817379)

Linux skilled coders typically require premium prices and are not as economical to employ. Or predictable might be a better word. Anyway, if we can pick one up, we will, but don't allow them to advance. In general we pass. Prima donnas.

Re:Can't Lock Linux Down (1)

alharaka (1531627) | more than 4 years ago | (#29817369)

First of all, I do not know how Windows Access Control translates into desktop management noticeable by end users in Windows, to draw the analogy you made to the Linux desktop. I had to look it up just to make sure what you meant here. http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa374860(VS.85).aspx [microsoft.com] This explains ACL's and low-level permissions. I will not go into details (because I am not an expert, and plenty on Slashdot can fill in for me here), but I think it is safe to say Ubuntu Linux, Linux, GNU/Linux (hello, flamewar), and most Unix variants have a pretty expressive permissions system. As an advancing n00b, it is enough to keep me locked out of my systems when running in a user account that is not in wheel. If you meant something like Local Group Policy and GPO's in an Active Directory environment (where I have to make my bread and butter), Linux has been making strides in this department. You just need to Google like everyone else. If you are looking for tools to lock down the Linux desktop(s), particularly GNOME in this example, there is already an active project using tools like gconf (mentioned in a post below), SELinux, and other security utilities to make a locked down kiosk account pretty easy. It is called xguest. http://docs.fedoraproject.org/selinux-user-guide/f11/en-US/sect-Security-Enhanced_Linux-Confining_Users-xguest_Kiosk_Mode.html [fedoraproject.org] I would love to hear what people have to say about it if they deploy it in the field. It is serious enough for a Red Hat sales engineer to bring it up as a cheap alternative to Windows kiosks I must laboriously lock down with aforementioned local GP and GPO's. SELinux is no joke either, since its development is derived from DoD/NSA research. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selinux [wikipedia.org] That being said, the current Linux solutions, if you figure in NSA/DoD cooperation, are at least as bad as Microsoft products. Only difference is that they are free.

You go IBM!!! (4, Insightful)

kimgkimg (957949) | more than 4 years ago | (#29816823)

Ubuntu would be great solution for the enterprise. Basic email and office apps, what more do you need? The only problem with Ubuntu is that it needs more testing and validation before each release cycle. I've had basic functionality break between releases and this will not be acceptable for business use.

More companies should follow IBM (4, Interesting)

Freaky Spook (811861) | more than 4 years ago | (#29817469)

The past 6 months for several clients I have been running Proof of Concepts of moving from Desktop infrastructure to VDI(Virtual Desktop Infrastructure)

Microsoft have made licensing for running Windows desktops in a virtual environment so insane and added ridiculous costs just for the privilege of running Windows XP, Vista or 7 in a data centre that when you look at the ROI you don't see a massive benefit of shedding hardware.

A couple of those clients are actually now investigating migrations from Windows desktop to Ubuntu/SUSE Linux and running legacy Windows applications from Sun SGD/Windows Termial Server.

VDI offers huge opportunities for companies to shed the upkeep and maintenance of desktops and Microsoft are putting in as many hurdles as humanly possible to keep companies purchasing desktops every 3-4 years so they can still get their Microsoft tax from OEM's. I'm advising anyone these days to assess their dependence on windows if they are looking at VDI solutions and investigate deployments in Linux.

Re:More companies should follow IBM (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 4 years ago | (#29817557)

Sadly so much bad windows software is out there most folks can't do that.

Here for 200 of our employees we are stuck with an app that only installs on XP SP2. No joke, the helpdesk folks get the image up to SP2 then install the app, then do the rest. It cannot be installed on server 2003 or vista. That is pretty much standard quality for most of the "Enterprise Grade Solutions" I encounter.

Re:You go IBM!!! (1)

DesertBlade (741219) | more than 4 years ago | (#29817473)

You can say the same for Microsoft. I know most sysadmins I worked with won't touch a MS product until after service pack 1.

Nobody ever got fired... (4, Funny)

MrEricSir (398214) | more than 4 years ago | (#29816835)

...for downloading Ubuntu Linux.

Re:Nobody ever got fired... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29817107)

Trying to install it however is and entirely different story.

Re:Nobody ever got fired... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29817239)

...but I know a few who got a chair in the face.

Re:Nobody ever got fired... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29817335)

No, but they do get chairs thrown at them.

IBM's answer to Windows 3.1 was OS/2 Warp... (2, Insightful)

Anita Coney (648748) | more than 4 years ago | (#29816837)

.... which IBM wouldn't even sell in its own computers. I wish 'em luck in their new endeavor. They'll need it.

Re:IBM's answer to Windows 3.1 was OS/2 Warp... (3, Insightful)

Narpak (961733) | more than 4 years ago | (#29817015)

OS/2 Warp was made at a time when a significant part of those with the knowhow to make and support a evolving OS worked for Microsoft. Not to mention that it is known that Microsoft leveraged their situation, and growing economic capacity, to convince manufactures that adopting their OS was a good idea.

The Linux platform has a growing support base of not insignificant proportions at this point, and the Ubuntu system has proven itself to be quite robust and one of the easier implementations for new users to get a handle on. The capability to get technical help, support, documentation, and whatever else a company might need, is far different today with Ubuntu Linux than what is was for OS2 when it was introduced.

I can not predict how this will turn out in the end, but looking back and using OS2 as an example for how this will develop seems like conjecture.

Re:IBM's answer to Windows 3.1 was OS/2 Warp... (2, Informative)

jonatha (204526) | more than 4 years ago | (#29817251)

The main problem with OS/2 was that it came out too soon, and so the muckety mucks decreed that it had to run on a 286, and so lots of it was 16-bit, and so when the 386 came out the move to 32-bit was painful. The second problem with OS/2 was the GUI's single-threaded model....

Re:IBM's answer to Windows 3.1 was OS/2 Warp... (1)

jrumney (197329) | more than 4 years ago | (#29817563)

The biggest problem was the differences in the way Microsoft and IBM targetted their marketing. I worked at an OS/2 shop at the time, building POS systems. When OS/2 Warp was about to come out, they sent one of their evangelists to talk to the developers about why we should upgrade from 1.3 (we skipped 2.0, because it was a major change that didn't really add value for the custom applications we were shipping). At the same time, Microsoft sent one of their sales guys to talk to our head of marketing, and the decision was made to switch both the OS/2 products and some other Unixware based products we made to NT 3.5.

Re:IBM's answer to Windows 3.1 was OS/2 Warp... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29817241)

No, it was more Windows 3.1 was an answer to a (still at the time unfinished) OS/2. Microsoft got out of the arrangement, and used the knowledge to produce windows 3.1

Business (4, Insightful)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 4 years ago | (#29816857)

Ubuntu works for me. Large community, fixed release schedule.
But whatever your choice, small to medium sized companies need to plan well ahead *before* they get locked in,
otherwise one day you'll be in your office and your MS exchange server will say "I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that", then you're stuck with the thing forever.

A company like IBM doesn't need Microsoft (5, Interesting)

iamacat (583406) | more than 4 years ago | (#29816937)

If Microsoft introduces an incompatible change in Windows 8 (so that, for example a given version of IE can no longer be installed, or a driver for a widely deployed device stops working), it can force a company into unbounded costs of updating their software and hardware. On the other hand, once initial migration to Ubuntu is done, only an effort of a dozen developers would be needed to compile Firefox 1.0 with new libraries, update a driver to work with 2.6 kernel and so on. While for an individual it may be acceptable - and cheaper - to buy new peripherals and applications - IBM can trivially afford custom development costs to keep an operating system running exactly the same way they want it.

It doesn't make sense for any large business with non-trivial needs to run an operating system for which they can not control future direction.

Not "YearoftheLinuxDesktop" (1)

capnkr (1153623) | more than 4 years ago | (#29816943)

More like "Year of the Linux Desktop Being Used to Reach the Cloud"? Which, I guess, will be good for the 'general' Linux desktop end user anyway. Fallout from this might prove beneficial in things like wider vendor support, more recognition, maybe some driver work in areas where attention is needed (cough Intel GMA500... /cough).

Fuck Obama. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29816967)

That fascist pig won't be happy until the government controls every single aspect of every single human endeavor on the planet. WAAAAA, stop asking hard questions of the Anointed One! He doesn't like it! WAAA, Democrats control the White House, both houses of Congress, and the media, and they STILL haven't completed their health care takeover because they can't all agree on how best to screw the middle class. WAAAA, we'll just blame Republicans even though we have a majority in the House and 60 members in the Senate. WAAAAA!!!

I'm so enjoying watching that douchebag of an affirmative action experiment gone terribly wrong go down in flames. It warms my heart to watch young first-time voters crushed to learn that their free government education has failed them and that President != Emperor of the Universe.

Maybe IBM can't count??? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29816997)

$2,000 US to upgrade per machine? I don't know what in the heck IBM is talking about. I've been running Windows 7 on a two year old $500 laptop without any issues since Beta. They are easily over exagerating that cost, in my opinion, and frankly it turns me off of Ubuntu to see them buddying up with IBM in this way.

*On an interesting side note, I wonder if they calculated all the man hours and reworking of customized code that most shops would have to put in to go from a Microsoft shop to all Linux - I seriously doubt it.
**Do we even want to get into the compatability issues with COTS that still plagues Linux?

It isn't just licensing costs... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29817011)

Devil's advocate here:

In a lot of places in the US, a company can get Windows expertise fairly cheaply. However, Linux administrators who have worked with distributions on production critical hardware are relatively rare. This cost difference may make the licensing for Microsoft products the least of a company's worries.

There is also Sarbanes Oxley. Using the wrong OS can get a company shut down and the officers of the company put in jail. This sounds extreme, but if "due diligence" isn't followed as part of a business plan, this can happen. Part of due diligence is making sure the OS is secure. Thus FIPS and Common Criteria metrics. This isn't to say that a Linux distribution doesn't meet these criteria -- RedHat and SuSE both meet these. However, Ubuntu does not, and this can spell BIG trouble come audit time.

Re:It isn't just licensing costs... (1)

keatonguy (1001680) | more than 4 years ago | (#29817153)

A good point, but let's not forget that under the glitzy GUI Ubuntu is STILL Linux, and you can lock it down just as tight as any other distribution with a bit of elbow grease. Security is hardly one of Linux's black marks.

Re:It isn't just licensing costs... (1)

AnotherUsername (966110) | more than 4 years ago | (#29817371)

Devil's advocate:
I am sure that if Linux had the market share that Windows does, it would have many more security problems. Part of the reason that Linux doesn't have security problems is because most of the bad guys of the technology world don't care about it, therefore they don't concentrate their efforts on it. This is not to say that it isn't secure. It is quite secure. However, just because security holes aren't utilized on a wide scale doesn't mean they are not there.

Re:It isn't just licensing costs... (-1, Troll)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 4 years ago | (#29817435)

Apache would like to have a word with you.

Do you get paid to shill?

Being a devil's advocate on an issue != being a troll on an issue, but pretending to be a devil's advocate just so you can FUD = Troll.

Re:It isn't just licensing costs... (3, Insightful)

ozmanjusri (601766) | more than 4 years ago | (#29817215)

Using the wrong OS can get a company shut down and the officers of the company put in jail.

Ahhhh, the sweet sweet smell of Microsoft FUD.

Ridiculous (0, Troll)

SparafucileMan (544171) | more than 4 years ago | (#29817033)

I wonder how IBM arrived at the result of $2000. Because I'm pretty sure that out of the 150k people that I work with that 3/4 of them will take months to adjust to Linux and be completely pissed off the entire time. At an internal rate of $100-$150 per person per hour... uh... lol, right.

This is what most of the company uses: Outlook, Word, Excel, Powerpoint. Project. File shares. Blackberry/Phone. Online web conferences. PDF. That's about it. Everything else is either a back-end system specific to the business or a program (i.e, drafting, manufacturing, etc) for the specific business at hand.

And don't give me crap about open office solutions. It took most of these people 10 or 20 years to just get by with Office, you really think they are going to want to essentially re-learn everything? $2000 is only relevant if the people are actually fairly computer savy, which pretty much everyone everywhere is not nor do they care to bother.

Re:Ridiculous (3, Insightful)

borcharc (56372) | more than 4 years ago | (#29817185)

And don't give me crap about open office solutions. It took most of these people 10 or 20 years to just get by with Office, you really think they are going to want to essentially re-learn everything? $2000 is only relevant if the people are actually fairly computer savy, which pretty much everyone everywhere is not nor do they care to bother.

I have converted several MS Office users to Open Office, they have never complained. It usually came down to one simple issue, $339.99 or free, pick one, they are the same. This is my experience with office workers, executives, and my 60 year old mom. There is almost no relearning, no one complains especially when the boss says thats how it is. If you disagree perhaps you should give open office a try, its not the same piece of crap you installed 10 years ago....

Re:Ridiculous (2, Insightful)

AnotherUsername (966110) | more than 4 years ago | (#29817317)

If someone utilizes Excel to its full potential, they would be pissed off if they switched to Open Office, because, frankly, Calc doesn't have the high-end functions that Excel does.

Re:Ridiculous (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 4 years ago | (#29817415)

If someone utilizes Excel to its full potential, they would be pissed off if they switched to Open Office, because, frankly, Calc doesn't have the high-end functions that Excel does.

Yeah thats why nobody should buy Toyota cars when obviously every driver needs Ferrari performance.

Re:Ridiculous (1)

mjwx (966435) | more than 4 years ago | (#29817455)

I wonder how IBM arrived at the result of $2000

Because that's how much it would cost to have an Indian replace their job if they cant adapt.

Western societies have lost the ability to compete, rather then sink or swim they'd rather sue the water for being there in the first place.

Most of the people I know would be able to adapt to Ubuntu and Open Office in no time, the problem is fear, once you get people to get over their fear teaching them a new system is easy. There is also an advantage to doing this migration in a herd. For an individual it may take months to learn a new system completely but when all their co-workers are learning it as well the less bright workers often receive the benefits of the brighter workers (just like they do now with windows). There is always one non-IT person in a team that can point out "this is how you do that" to other team members.

The only people who will have problems with Linux are the people who currently have problems with Windows. In (Australian) schools how to use computers and office suites have been taught to every student for the last 12 years as being able to use them is considered a necessary skill in today's society. My generation (I'm 27) was the last generation to produce a significant number of people who couldn't use a PC, even then it's hard to find a 30 yr old who cant use a computer.

t's no secret that for IBM (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 4 years ago | (#29817045)

Linux is the shiv they want to give to MS.

Now if they would take some of that money and develop a market for game houses to make games for it we would have something.

Irrelevant (-1, Offtopic)

DogDude (805747) | more than 4 years ago | (#29817079)

Blah blah blah Linux is the best blah blah blah. Broad statements like this press release are absolutely irrelevant to those of us for whom *nix isn't even an option. In my case, there's no low to mid range POS software that runs on *nix. *nix isn't even a consideration for me and my business. End of story.

Re:Irrelevant (4, Funny)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 4 years ago | (#29817217)

> ...there's no low to mid range POS software that runs on *nix.

True. "Piece Of Shit" software is a Microsoft specialty.

IBM (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29817087)

.. MS need to be careful. IBM may be a beat up company but they still have a lot of power and can still hurt MS.

Ubuntu needs some refinement in the server space (3, Insightful)

Luke has no name (1423139) | more than 4 years ago | (#29817101)

Ubuntu is an impressive distro for reasons many have argued here before. Karmic is actually a great improvement over Jaunty, and I think it's heading in a positive direction.

I might not have seen it, but I think Ubuntu's server area needs professional, detailed, Ubuntu-specific (if needed) DOCUMENTATION on everything an Ubuntu admin would need to use. http://doc.ubuntu.com/ [ubuntu.com] has the most up-to-date version of the Ubuntu Server Guide, which is a decent start. It pales in comparison, however, to the FreeBSD handbook.

Where's the documentation on
GRUB 2?
Upstart?
UEC?
Building your own repository?
Setting up mass deployment via Kickstart/preseeding?

These are all things integral to the operating system and its deployment. I'm not saying Ubuntu has to have the definitive guide to Nagios or other 3rd party software.

Some things are well covered in the Ubuntu Server Guide, "Pro Ubuntu Server Administration" and Prentice Hall's "The Official Ubuntu Server Book". I would like to see more enterprise tooling and documentation for Ubuntu Server before I expect them to make a significant trench in the enterprise space.

And for those who might say Ubuntu is a desktop-oriented distro,
1) You haven't seen the work or the marketing Ubuntu has done on their server side, and
2) I think Ubuntu could succeed if they can market themselves as THE operating system for an organization.

oh yeah linux is freaking awesome (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29817123)

unless you want sound, or wireless, or printing.

i've tried _so_hard_ to like linux about every year or so for the last 10 years, but come on.

Unless IBM spends $buttloads of dollars fixing it (at which point it would no longer be ubuntu but an IBM build (and didn't novell already try that?))

anyways fine, you'd end up with another MacOS. which might be cool, but any which way we're no longer discussing Ubuntu.

The FOSS model is great for what it is, but it doesn't compare to something which large amounts of money has been pumped into.

Re:oh yeah linux is freaking awesome (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 4 years ago | (#29817221)

It must make you very mad that I am at this very moment printing a map, and listening to pandora.com all the while using my wireless on ubuntu 8.10.

Do you get paid to shill?

Active Directory? (2, Informative)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 4 years ago | (#29817167)

Has anyone here been able to find a good guide for joining a Linux client to an AD domain?

Sorry, Wrong answer (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29817243)

Ubuntu is in the market since Windows XP, and it didn't even break through the Vista gap, if this is IBM's answer to Windows 7, sorry it is a very wrong answer

Competition, anyone? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29817245)

But wait, isn't this anti-competitive? Isn't that what everyone around here always shouts about Microsoft being bundled with computers bought from major vendors? Shouldn't Slashdot be lambasting IBM for not allowing their users to install whichever OS they want? Shouldn't Slashdot be demanding that IBM's computers be sold with no OS whatsoever? Or is it only anti-competitive if Microsoft does it?

Negotiating tactic (1)

egcagrac0 (1410377) | more than 4 years ago | (#29817277)

You heard it here first: Ubuntu IBMs unavailable in 10 weeks, timed conveniently with new promotional pricing on Windows 7 on IBM hardware...

Re:Negotiating tactic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29817381)

Um, you ARE aware that IBM doesn't sell desktops or any of the hardware TFA is talking about any more, aren't you? I mean you appear to be professing some insight, so it would be a shame if you were missing that key piece of the equation.

Sounds Cheap (1)

crackspackle (759472) | more than 4 years ago | (#29817285)

The big push is that IBM claims it will cost up to $2,000 for a business to move to Windows 7. They argue that moving to Linux is cheaper. Only $2000 for the likes of Wal-mart, Exxon or Coca-cola to move to Windows 7 ? I doubt Linux can be done anywhere near that cheap.

IBM isn't producing consumer PCs anymore (1)

Nimey (114278) | more than 4 years ago | (#29817299)

so MS can't threaten to raise their per-license costs for computers. It was never "friendship", especially after the NT-OS/2 split, just a business arrangement.

How many times does IBM have to get beaten by MS? (3, Interesting)

Zerimar (1124785) | more than 4 years ago | (#29817325)

MS-DOS beat PC-DOS NT3.5 beat OS/2 Heck, you can argue that MS SQL Server is beating DB2 If I were choosing a side in this fight, I'd stick with Microsoft...

Not a friend of Microsoft? (1)

kimvette (919543) | more than 4 years ago | (#29817485)

"It looks like IBM isn't much of a friend of Microsoft's anymore."

Anymore? This is old news. Remember OS/2?

Look at it this way. (4, Insightful)

JoeSixpack00 (1327135) | more than 4 years ago | (#29817495)

I think everyone here is missing the point. This is less about how accurate IBM's claims are, and more about the fact a company as large as IBM with a name that established was actually willing to publicly say it. That by itself is a major benifit for Linux.

This is all about momentum, marketing, and market share. I mean seriously, we act as if Microsoft has never made erroneous or speculative claims in the spirit of customer coercion. This is how business works.
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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...