Memo Confirms IBM Move To Linux Desktop? 881
m5shiv writes "The Inquirer is reporting on an allegedly leaked internal memo from IBM CIO Bob Greenberg discussing IBM's move to a Linux desktop: 'Our chairman has challenged the IT organization, and indeed all of IBM, to move to a Linux based desktop before the end of 2005. This means replacing productivity, web access and viewing tools with open standards based equivalents.' The enemy of my enemy is my friend?"
ITYM (Score:4, Insightful)
As far as IBM is concerned... (Score:5, Interesting)
Really, the commercial is so good, it brings tears to your eyes, especially if you are a long-suffering linux advocate of sorts in a sea of micro-idiots.
Re:As far as IBM is concerned... (Score:5, Funny)
Until you see the same little boy running around like an ADD afflicted monkey in a Chuck E. Cheese commercial like I did.
Link to the commercial... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:As far as IBM is concerned... (Score:5, Insightful)
seems to equate the use of linux with all the worlds best in their respective fields of expertice.
See, now, that's funny, because, to me, that commercial seems to equate Linux with a dopey sci-fi movie or one-season TV show.
What it *doesn't* equate to is the fleeting suspicion that anybody in the commercial knows anything about computers, software, operating systems, or OSS. I mean, they *might*, but you'd never know it from the commercial
Erm, the commercial is ABOUT OSS. Think about it. They say "we have this kid, his name is Linux" Linux learns everyday from the foremost experts around the world. As Linux grows he becomes stronger, faster, better, smarter. Linux absorbs everything around him. That is the essence of OSS, and that is what happens in the commercial. The idea is to get people who do not understand software to understand this fundamental fact of OSS.
Re:As far as IBM is concerned... (Score:5, Insightful)
>>Ali was a pacifist
Ali physically beats other men into submission for millions of dollars.
If he is a pacifist, I'd hate to see the warmongers from his clan...
Well, actually he does not do a lot of boxing nowadays. Parkinsons will do that to you.
Boxing is a sport. The participants in a boxing ring are fighting based one defined rules and are there of their own free will. I have never seen evidence that Ali ever caused more damage to an opponent than was necessary to win the fight. Likewise, boxers are usually not fighting to settle a dispute, they are playing a game.
Ali did not as far as I know ever ever advocate violence to solve problems in his life or the world. Yes, boxing is a violent sport like football and rugby, etc. But it is a sport and a game, not a violent means of resolving conflict.
Re:As far as IBM is concerned... (Score:5, Informative)
A person can maintain free will by being imprisoned: Conflicting Conditions [datanation.com]
If money exchanges hands in conjunction with game, then that game is a violent means of resolving conflict. Too Broad [datanation.com]
Re:As far as IBM is concerned... (Score:4, Funny)
winder if a new DE will come out of this (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:winder if a new DE will come out of this (Score:3, Insightful)
there'll be someone who re-invents the wheel again
With any luck, a round one this time instead of suffering with the two (main) horribly clunky desktop choices offered to Linux users now. If you really think KDE or GNOME are usable, you just haven't been around. If IBM had a clue, they'd push for more GNUstep [gnustep.org] development, which would actually give us all a shot at running some quality apps (commercially coming over from the Mac camp, of course) on Linux. A lot of things on Linux are nice, but making
Re:winder if a new DE will come out of this (Score:4, Insightful)
Seriously, I'd rather eat dogshit than try to look at a GNUStep screenshot, it's just that terrible.
If IBM wants to take GNUStep and make it sexy, more power to them, but in the meantime, KDE will remain the coolest, most gorgeous linux desktop environment available.
Re:winder if a new DE will come out of this (Score:5, Interesting)
It won't be KDE or Gnome - it will be WebSphere Portal applications w/Mozilla browser.
What desktop... (grin)
My bet (Score:4, Insightful)
Any bets that IBM's corporate desktop looks a lot like Ximian running on SuSE?
Re:My bet (Score:5, Informative)
and then we have Lotus Notes and Microsoft Office setup in Wine enivornments.
It's available for installation right now, however not everyone can use it because of certain applications that require specific things they've not gotten either emulated in Wine or replaced by a non-MS Specific application.
All you need is a diskette and about an hour and you too can wipe out your Windows Thinkpad or Desktop and off you go. Most of the engineering places that don't need a lot of the more verticle type applications like the Watson Labs and other labs have fully flipped to linux.
It's us types in the marketing/sales/customer facing environments that need specific apps that are holding us a back a bit.
Plus there's been no mandate. We all joke about it at tech conferences (I'm on the xSeries side) and such because everyone had 'heard' of this type of memo and a lot of our guys closer to using Linux more (IE not in the midwest but east and west coasts) have already converted over.
Most run VMware workstation to fire up windows on the rare opportunity that they need them. And the last guy I talked to about it as far back as August said he rarely ever needed to fire up Windows any more.
Re:Zero chance of this (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, I've heard that rumor, too. Probably here on
And it's the significant part. After all, linux is an OS kernel. It isn't a UI. The phrase "linux desktop" is utterly nonsensical. Any X-Windows "desktop" will run on linux.
The sensible thing for IBM or any other vendor to do is settle on a reasonably good window manager, and start building an integrated UI based on it. Gnome would work fine, as would KDE or Enlightenment or FVWM or CDE or
What wouldn't make sense if you're looking for a near-term market is starting your own window manager project. This would delay a lot of the integration work and put your "integrated desktop" package several years in the future.
This could be a deal with the devil for the Gnome folks, though. IBM has a long history of turning reasonable packages into bureaucratic monstrosities. If you think Gnome is bloated from featuritis now, just wait until you see IBM's extensions.
Has anyone here seen PL/I? Or used JCL?
Re:Zero chance of this (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes to both, and I've also used PL/I. (As a matter of fact, I've done so on my Linux box right here, using the Hercules IBM/370 emulator -- but I've also done the real iron.)
And APL which originated at IBM.
That said, they've also come up with some pretty good stuff, just give me a minute to think of it... oh yeah, the Guidance and Control system for the Saturn V, for one
Seriously, that was the old IBM. Lately they've been much better at delivering what the customer wants rather than what IBM thinks the customer needs. IBM isn't going to create their own desktop -- especially not at this stage of the process, where this is deployment for internal use. And I imagine most of the custom client apps will be web and/or Java based.
Not that IBM doesn't know a thing or two about desktop design -- their CUA (Common User Access) object-oriented desktop architecture is/was great, one of the things that OS/2 fans still rave about (although IIRC the OS/2 desktop wasn't quite CUA).
Re:Zero chance of this (Score:5, Interesting)
ShaunDon
Re:winder if a new DE will come out of this (Score:5, Insightful)
And you can pry my network transparency from my cold dead hands.
Re:winder if a new DE will come out of this (Score:5, Interesting)
That'd really shut the anti-X11 folks up
X11 is not the problem (Score:5, Insightful)
The X Window system is possibly one of the best features in Linux right now, not to mention the number of applications (basically just about all of them) written to take advantage of it. The ability to remote the display is a powerful thing that allows for many compute options not easily done with single-user framebuffer based systems. (All of them are single user, unless you count some wierd dual head setup.)
We need to work harder at presenting Linux in a useable way, not stripping it to look like the other OSes out there right now.
X11 is what makes Linux a true multi-user operating system. It is a big part of where the power is. Why come all this way only to give up one of the core values?
Lets say we actually do this. All the new applications then get written for the frame buffer. Single users might gain some small benefit from a bit lower complexity (which can and will be solved in presentation), but everyone else loses. The money is in the corporate systems and that is where X11 plays hard. Application servers delivering applications to desktops over X11 are easy to administer and cost effective. Client-server just cannot compare really.
Rather than nuke one of our killer enterprise features to make Linux work for isolated single users, we need to continue to work hard at getting Linux in front of brand new users and schools. People that begin with Linux are not going to have any trouble with it. They will grow with Linux as it continues to mature, the result over time will be better for everyone.
Those running the current win32 systems are all going to want things the way they have them now. Giving that to them is not worth it because that is accepting their way at a lower cost, and that is just not what OSS is about. OSS is about powerful software with freedom built in from the beginning, not software designed around the competition.
We can continue to build Linux just the way it is now and slowly the others will either:
1.) See the light and join us,
or
2.) Continue doing what they are doing. (while paying a lot for the option of doing so)
Either way, OSS will continue as it has, which means tossing X11 (which making it an addon is doing) won't be worth it.
Linux is pretty easy now and we are only at the beginning! Lets keep it intact for a bit longer before taking such drastic measures.
Oh boy, here we go again (Score:4, Insightful)
The other replies to this handle the technical details fine. All I have to add is that I have been using X11 for years on funky 386s and up and never felt the GUI was any kind of bottleneck. If it worked fine on a 33Mhz 386, even if the screen wasn't as big, why the dickens won't it work on 3Ghz Pentiums and Opterons? Why is it that as processors and memory get faster and faster, more oddballs come out of the woodworks screaming about what a pig dog X11 is?
Re:winder if a new DE will come out of this (Score:5, Informative)
Applications write drawing commands to a buffer.
When the buffer is full, the GL library makes a system call, and uses a special ioctl to DMA the command buffer into the graphics memory. The graphics card than carries out those commands.
That's very similar to how the X protocol works! You know why? Because both were designed to be abstract and network-transparent from the very beginning!
But? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:But? (Score:5, Funny)
i think you meant to say "does it run os/2?"
Access (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Access (Score:5, Insightful)
Documents that IBM exports are one thing, but for documents sent to IBM and internal stuff, what IBM says goes.
Re:Access (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Access (Score:4, Informative)
"You want to charge me $5 million for a mainframe by sending me a proposal that I can't read in Microsoft Office? Got take a hike!"
I am an IBMer, and I do send proposals to customers and they are *not* sent in Office format. Company policy is that proposals (since they're legal documents, even if they may or may not be "signable") are never sent to a customer in an editable format. The preferred format is printed paper, but PDF is often used.
That said, though your example is bad, your point is valid: We do exchange documents with clients, and Office formats are the ones most commonly used because Office is what everyone has. OpenOffice.org can work around most of these issues, but there are documents it doesn't handle. It will be interesting to see how that issue is addressed, assuming this is for real.
Re:Access (Score:5, Insightful)
Even someone running Word can figure out how to open it...
Even someone running Word can use RTF (Score:5, Funny)
2000: He sends me a doc files. Each time I say "Don't send me doc files, I can't read them. RTF or PDF." I'm too stubborn to do whatever it takes to read doc files.
2001: He sends me a doc files. Each time I say "Don't send me doc files, I can't read them. RTF or PDF." I'm too stubborn to do whatever it takes to read doc files.
2002: He sends me a doc files. Each time I say "Don't send me doc files, I can't read them. RTF or PDF." I'm too stubborn to do whatever it takes to read doc files.
2003: He sends me a doc files. Each time I say "Don't send me doc files, I can't read them. RTF or PDF." I'm too stubborn to do whatever it takes to read doc files.
Guess how 2004 is shaping up? Hint: he sent me a doc file this morning.
Re:Even someone running Word can use RTF (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Access (Score:5, Insightful)
I've seen this argument and I've always thought that it makes sense. Until I tried to RTFify a medium-sized Word document that was less that 5 MB. The resultant rtf was over 200 MB.
Lesson? A compressed, teplated, styled document format sometimes makes more sense than an inline marked up format. And if you are using Windows, what other format fits that bill besides .doc?
Re:Access (Score:5, Informative)
The first step was to have Word convert it's own documents to see what happens, and Word does the same here as what FrontPage was famous for as well: Loads of markup code that isn't used (putting font code around an image, for example).
The most anoying part is that any in-document image is stored twice in Word-RTF. Once in hex-code, and once more in WMF-format. The latter will usually be 8 to 10 times the size of the hex-code representation, and can safely be removed. Word will still show your image normally... but should you save the document, it'd generate the WMF file inline again.
The code I wrote generated styled resumees, and the average document size went down from 150kb to around 10kb by switching to RTF. Opening and saving the file again in RTF with Word would bloat the file up to 2MB.
So, yes, RTF can be used to make styled documents the same as Word, and the document will actually be smaller, but don't let Word generate those documents for you. It'll bloat then.
Business Apps are what it's all about! (Score:5, Insightful)
This simply cannot be overstated (Score:5, Insightful)
The Mac was gonna set the world on fire. It did desktop publishing to beat all hell. But not Lotus 1-2-3 so one got put in the graphics department and everybody else got PCs. And Lotus.
The Amiga was one of the neatest computers ever made, it outperformed the PC in every respect... but it never ran Lotus 1-2-3. Two businesses bought them and they were gone within 5 years.
Whatever software your idiot boss needs to run dictates the platform the company and businesses in general, will use. There are simply no exceptions to this rule.
Re:This simply cannot be overstated (Score:4, Funny)
To be serious, I actually used SC on FreeBSD for all my budget, payroll, and productivity trending at an ISP I worked at. A curses based spreadsheet works fine over a 9600 bps modem.
Maybe for the end user . . . (Score:4, Insightful)
But I quietly wait for the day when stupid managers are replaced by smatter managers who realize that Excel, Access, and its ilk only create drones that copy and paste all day, tend to their macros that greatly complicate "simple" programming problems(therefore, must be tended to), and create "irreplaceable employees" that you can't fire because what they do is so poorly documented the business would stop running for an unexceptable time if you did (hmm, what does this cell do . .
I can't wait . . . until outsourcing to India and China makes programming so cheap that all those drones who think they are "knowledge workers" can finally be set free to get real careers because companies can now afford masters of Perl and the DBI module to actually bring back efficiency and dignitiy to the human race by expressing human thought in a burst of insightful code ONCE, instead of mindless clicks and grunts every month, an endless cycle of futility.
Mind you, these new knowledge workers will most likely be home grown, once unemployed programmers who went back to school to learn accounting and finance. They will believe in solving the same problem ONCE and will not be afraid to code to get the job done. They will also have seen how accountants have bettered their own profession by making it independent of corporate interests and hopefully will bring the same to the IT profession (which I will work hard to become a member of).
Until then, it is back to writing Perl to deal with the stupidity that apps like Excel and Access breed . .
Seek the truth, and ye will find Open Source.
Hmm ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Hmm ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Probably the big reason they wouldn't be interesting in flaunting it so much is that their workstation offerings are far more limited than Sun's, who has made a big effort to show that they are ``with it'' when it comes to Linux on the desktop (even if they continue to adamantly support Solaris as a server OS).
But I don't know. Just seems to be like that.
Re:Hmm ... (Score:5, Informative)
Only makes sense (Score:5, Insightful)
A similar switch might be tougher for other large organizations with widescale Windows deployments, where a few lightly-customized Win2k images might be the most they can currently support.
They'll come around eventually...
Re:Only makes sense (Score:5, Interesting)
Not always a good thing (Score:5, Funny)
This is about dog food (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think this makes sense from a productivity standpoint. Most of us probably believe that linux wins a TCO fight with Windows, but that would not be the case if you had to develop all your basic tools from scratch, even for IBM.
No, this is about eating their own dog food. It's not a good message when you're pushing your product but you use other products. If IBM is to convince buyers to use Linux for typical desktop productivity work, they better use it themselves.
Re:This is about dog food (Score:4, Insightful)
So silly. (Score:3, Insightful)
Pththth-fit, wrong-o. The whole point of real openly published standards is to avoid the need for software design. While IBM has made real contributions to free code, this is a cost saving move.
If by "cross-platform" you mean it will run all the old Microsoft crap they paid for, they have already done that. Running legacy windoze was part of the Munich deal. No on
Turn around. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Turn around. (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, but realize that IBM has been around since about 1914, that they have been the "bad guy" before, and just because they are supporting open source now doesn't mean that they couldn't find a way to exploit it for their own selfish good later.
Again, glad they're supporting open-source software, but I wonder how much of their support is in recognition of the value of open-source, and how much is just to spite Microsoft?
Re:Turn around. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Turn around. (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, 20 years ago I worked for several employers that had a big IBM mainframe (and minis were just coming in). What did the mainframe run? It ran VM, of course, plus whatever subsystems the various departments liked.
And where did VM come from? Uh, it was developed in academia. It was an open-source project from the start, though the term hadn't been invented then. IBM tried to downplay it for a few years, and then embraced it as they realized it was a Good Thing for everyone.
VM came with full source (I saw a fair amount of it), and there wasn't any problem showing it to people. IBM supported it, and they also happily accepted bug fixes from anyone.
I was in the engineering department, and one day we brought in Amdahl's version of unix that ran on VM. We joked about installing it over the dead bodies of a lot of IBMers. But the IBM reps themselves didn't have a problem with it. They were curious, and several wished they could supply something so useful. The "dead IBMer bodies" were the local people who thought that IBM was a religion and we'd invited in a devil. The actual IBM employees thought these people were stupid. Their attitude was more like "If it help customers use our machines, we're all for it."
In fact, IBM has long supplied software like VM that they didn't develop. Having lots o useful apps has always been a good tool for selling the hardware. And they have long supported at least some non-IBM software, because much of their income comes from support contracts.
IBM has long been a mixed pack of very good guys and very bad guys, with a lot of people ethically in the middle. Like any other giant monopolistic corporation.
Re:Turn around. (Score:5, Insightful)
IBM is a corporation whose main reason for existence is to make money and maximize shareholder value. Things like these have absolutely nothing to do with their "support" of free software.
Re:Turn around. (Score:5, Insightful)
IBM is a corporation whose main reason for existence is to make money and maximize shareholder value. Things like these have absolutely nothing to do with their "support" of free software.
Most major closed-source software projects contain large chunks of code licensed from other people. It is quite possible that good portions of DB2 and Notes are licensed from others.
The cost of a code audit on something like that can be enormous. Google for Bruce Perens' comments about when HP let OpenMail go -- and why he advised *against* open sourcing it.
Supporting open source and maximizing shareholder value aren't mutually exclusive. IBM is a very large services organization. They can and do make quite a bit of profit supporting other people's stuff.
-Charles Hill
friends. (Score:5, Insightful)
Go Big Blue! It's about time for you to take back the innovation crown those monkeys in Redmond pretended to wear.
A step in the right direction (Score:4, Interesting)
IBM leak (Score:3, Funny)
Too bad they didn't do that with OS/2... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Too bad they didn't do that with OS/2... (Score:5, Informative)
The hardware of the time was woefully underpowered for the job. A high-end desktop in the early '90s had maybe 8 MB of RAM. Try running OS/2 2.0, CM/2 (the SNA protocol stack), and Win-OS/2 (Windows 3.0 hacked to run in a DOS session). Win-OS/2 was a requirement, because the 16-bit Windows applications of the time were vastly better than their 32-bit OS/2 counterparts when the latter even existed.
Re:Too bad they didn't do that with OS/2... (Score:3, Informative)
I ran a multi-node BBS on a 486 DX2/66 with 12 megs of ram for at least 2 years. I was able to run Wordperfect 6.0 in a seamless session and two dos sessions simultaneously all the time on that machine. It ran just fine.
Re:Too bad they didn't do that with OS/2... (Score:3, Insightful)
OS/2 was doomed to fail when directly competing against Windows. Not due to any technical reason, but because you can't beat Microsoft's Windows by attempting to market a better Windows, than Windows. By embracing Linux, you can't be gamed by Microsoft.
Hmmm, an opening? ;) (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Hmmm, an opening? ;) (Score:5, Funny)
Those 5 employees are too busy licking envelopes with threatening letters, selling their stock, surfing monster.com when Darl's not looking. No time for this.
Linux as a desktop? (Score:5, Interesting)
Think of it - if the whole of IBM starts using a well designed desktop system, i'm sure a lot of other companies will follow suit.
This really is what Linux needs - a HUGE and well known company using not only a Linux user dekstop system but also assocaited open source applications to get things done in everyday business, while managing NOT to use any M$ products whatsoever.
And if successful and I never thought I'd be saying this but it could be the beginning of the end of Microsoft's total dominance in the desktop OS market.
Re:Linux as a desktop? (Score:3, Interesting)
Wouldn't they rather be picking up all the disenfranchised Windows users?
Needless to say replacing all those PC's for Apple G4's and 5's is a massive roadblock for such a switch, but at least people get a taste for something other than Windows, which can't be a bad thing on any level.
Re:Linux as a desktop? (Score:3, Interesting)
Nevertheless, any Linux adoption is good for Apple, as virutally any software for Linux can be ported to MacOS X without too much difficulty. Just look at all t
Think IBM will be paying... (Score:3, Funny)
here's hoping (Score:5, Insightful)
With any large deploy of a new system, there will be issues, and if they can correct those and/or customize it for there need in house they will make a great selling point for other corporations.
Why not (Score:5, Insightful)
There is a business reason for this... (Score:5, Insightful)
But the business reason probably has something to do with Longhorn shipping 2006ish, and avoiding paying an upgrade fee to MS for desktops for over 300,000 employees worldwide. Even if the upgrade costs them just $79 and they only have to upgrade 100,000 computers, they could still save a cool $7.9 million by switching to a Linux desktop.
You talk about an MS tax, an additional $7.9 million looks good on anyone's bottom line. I wish IBM good luck with this one!
Of course, if they got rid of PC's altogether and replaced them with 3270 terminals and daisy wheel printers, they would be able to save $$$ on desktop management costs.
Re:There is a business reason for this... (Score:5, Insightful)
*disclaimer*
I work for IBM in a rollout and customer service capacity.
Re:There is a business reason for this... (Score:5, Insightful)
Now is the time (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course IBM could also see a huge cost savings over time as well, and provide a true real-world case for negating the ridiculous "TCO" whipping horse MS continues to fabricate results against.
Lotus Notes already runs on Linux (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Lotus Notes already runs on Linux (Score:5, Interesting)
We don't use it for project management or expenses, though.
FWIW -- I never got the e-mail that started the whole thing and I'm in a position where it would show up in my inbox. There's no mention of it anywhere on the interal web either. This might be a hoax.
- Anonymous IBMer
Gartner will say... (Score:5, Funny)
Still needs more 3rd party support (Score:5, Insightful)
Lotus Notes Client? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Lotus Notes Client? (Score:5, Interesting)
I haven't heard if it will have full client functionality or just a subset (might be just mail). They are going to have a basic version for release mid-year and then release a full version with offline capability by early next year.
An IBMer's perspective (Score:5, Informative)
However, many groups use applications that cannot be replaced on Linux. My group, for instance, does nearly all of our work in Visio. I've looked at Kivio and others, and I can't begin to tell you how primitive they are. Also, at least my group does a lot of active development in Visual Basic to automate Visio and other programs.
Essentially what I'm saying is many basic users here may be able to move to Linux, but Windows will remain the primary client for the forseeable future, simply for the applications, integration, and relative ease of working with partners who use Windows.
Re:An IBMer's perspective (Score:5, Funny)
Wine can be like the "Classic" compatibility environment for running MacOS 9 apps in MacOS X. You use it when you have to until the native app gets ported and and gets good enough.
As a former IBMer myself, I encourage you to try to migrate to Linux on some of your boxes. When you run into problems - report them and try to chase them down and get them solved!
IBM's move to Linux on the desktop could be the catalyzing event that kills Windows forever. Go for it!
Re:An IBMer's perspective (Score:3, Funny)
Only kidding.
Re:An IBMer's perspective (Score:5, Interesting)
IBM : Past, Present, Future? (Score:5, Interesting)
Current CEO is the Linux geek... (Score:5, Interesting)
Jokes apart, Gerstner [ibm.com] put this guy on top and it's the one that managed the first sniffing ceremonies towards Linux. Do I see a pattern? Companies on the point of extinction like Apple and IBM (big companies... as far as mindshare and cultural relevance) literally resurrected the moment they embraced OSS and played by it's rules. Other companies like sun [sun.com] are fading away and nasty M$ (Yah, troll me... I'm spelling is M$... yes, I'm biased) is yapping in fear [microsoft.com]. Folks, it's our time. Old PHBs are retiring to Florida's golf resorts, the evangelized decision makers are making space for the new illuminati... I hate to say it, actually I'm not pleased by the "feast or fast" attitude of this industry, but the cosmological pendulum is swinging our way (I just hope I won't be put aside as these fools are today).
Re:Current CEO is the Linux geek... (Score:3, Insightful)
We wouldn't to be responsible for another monoculture, now would we?
Of course, there's always iTron
Notes , organizer. Quicken (Score:3, Interesting)
If IBM is serious, they will help port (or offer incentives) to companies such as Quicken to move. Mostly, they will simply move their own stuff.
Re:Notes , organizer. Quicken (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, I am sure most of IBM's bookkeeping stuff is done on Quicken. They are probably thinking about upgrading to Quickbook if their growth continues.
Will IBM make a desktop distro? (Score:3, Insightful)
Sun has already invested money and resources for its own Java Desktop System [sun.com].
IBM has invested resources to developing the Linux kernel. Will IBM also develop its own desktop system? If so, how will it be different from the competition? Will they contribute their code (some or all) to the Linux community under a GPL'd licence? Will it conform to some sort of formal standards? What of the system architecture? Will we see PPC IBM branded desktop computers and/or will it work on Wintel architectures?
Eating their own dog food (Score:5, Insightful)
No, IBM, Don't Do That! (Score:3, Funny)
Awesome, but what about Notes? (Score:5, Informative)
I work at IBM, and Linux is the only OS I use. It's a little rough in some spots, but ultimately workable. For me, the combo is:
SameTime (The Lotus Messenger) => Sanity (a Perl based clone)
Notes R5 => Notes R5 under CrossOver Office
MS Office => MS Office under CrossOver Office (when needed)
If Linux were the official desktop, that would be awesome.
Note: While I work at IBM, I'm not in any of the areas which decide these issues, and have no information is support or refutation of the rumors in the report. (But I can dream...)
Since when has IBM been the enemy? (Score:5, Interesting)
IBM created the PC and then basically "open sourced" the architecture. Who knows why they did this, because lots of people made big money off it, and IBM didn't see very much of that. So IBM made PS/2 and MCA(microchannel) and tried to wrestle the market back. Then they gave up and focused on providing business machines (servers). They kept starting and discontining their home computer lines. I can never remeber if they still make desktops, harddrives or laptops.
I'm not sure why IBM would be the enemy. They are pretty active in the open source community. They don't really "interfere" with our choices of systems.
Also I'm actually surprised to see this in the news. I foolishly assumed IBM already moved to using Linux a few years back. They seem to promote Linux enough at tradeshows and TV and magazine ads. I guess it's hard to promote Linux if you aren't willing to use it in your own company, perhaps this is just putting their money where their mouth is.
Re:Since when has IBM been the enemy? (Score:5, Informative)
According to most of the books I've read concerning the history of the computer industry, it happened something like this:
The IBM PC was hurriedly slapped together with off-the-shelf parts because IBM wanted a piece of the burgeoning personal computer market, which was then practically owned by Apple. IBM knew that if they went through their normal development cycle and did everything in-house, the product would have been hopelessly late to market. So they assembled a team of people and told them to basically circumvent the normal IBM Way of Doing Things, and did so by buying almost every component they needed from outside vendors, including the OS, which came from a relatively small company called Microsoft (perhaps you've heard of them?). The only truly proprietary part of the PC was the BIOS.
Anyway, IBM went ahead with the PC because they thought that the proprietary BIOS would prevent anyone from duplicating the PC without getting trampled by IBM's lawyers. They also thought that the volume discount component prices they were getting could not be matched by any ragtag startup company. Compaq proved them wrong, first by reverse-engineering the BIOS and then producing an IBM PC clone profitably.
Phoenix also reverse-engineered the IBM BIOS, but instead of building their own PC clones with it, they began licensing their version to anyone who wanted to use it.
Then the hardware producers in Asia started stamping out shipping containers full of parts, component prices reached 'commodity' status, and IBM's perceived exclusive economies of scale were history.
Microsoft's non-exclusive terms with IBM let them license MS-DOS to anyone who wanted it, so the cloners were able to ship the same OS as IBM.
IBM still tried to compete, but their product cycle was twice as long as everyone else's. IIRC, Compaq was first to market with a 386-based system. IBM had defined the standards and then the cloners ran away with the market. Microchannel was IBM's attempt to regain the title of 'standard-bearer' for the computer industry, but the cloners took one look at the onerous licensing terms for MCA and said no thanks. They then formed their own coalition to develop standards for the hardware they were developing, and that was pretty much it for IBM as a force in the personal computing market.
So basically, IBM didn't "open source" their hardware purposely. They were victims of their own greed-- desperate to get a piece of the personal computer market as quickly as possible, they created an almost completely open system that was much more quickly and easily duplicated by third parties than they thought.
~Philly
Last straw: Lotus notes (Score:5, Interesting)
However, as you could read from another article linked at the bottom of the original article, IBM is dropping Lotus Notes. I wonder what's going to take its place.
DT
times have changed (Score:5, Insightful)
Think about it. IBM has quite thoroughly embraced linux, and is moving in more of that direction every day. Linux's very core philosophy is that of openess and unrestriction - the very philosophies that monopolies fight against.
The only thing (at least from the business perspective) IBM gains by embracing linux is to move the power away from MS. From that point, where does the power go?
Well, obviously, it draws power from AMD and Intel and more towards IBM for PPC processors, since linux works just fine on PPC processors, but in terms of software, they gain nothing. You can't 'take' something that is given away, as linux is.
Instead of power migrating from MS to IBM in the rise of linux, power migrates to the people - the populace and citizens. That's democracy.
More apps to come? (Score:5, Insightful)
For public consumption (Score:5, Insightful)
Excuse me for still having some scepticism in my brain, but if I was running IBM, I would have already set as much of this up as feasible by the back door and then announce publically that I was going to do it on a quite short timeframe. Then when I succeed I can go to other companies "look, it's predictable and safe". Companies hate change, employees hate change, it's risky or just plain annoying so if you really want to get the huge organisations to take this sort of a change seriously, you are going to have to be able to provide serious evidence.
Leaving scepticism (which was fueled by a comment refering to a base desktop build which already exists in IBM) aside, this is so logical it's simple! If IBM transfer their own business over to IBM's own software across the board, then they have a constantly provable business environment which they can sell and support on their own hardware. They can return to selling one stop shops, but by basing the underlying systems (as far as they commit to) on Free software, they completely disarm the feeling of being forced to choose between evils, you can choose a potential evil and feel free to walk away (well you might be replacing lots of hardware if you completely drop them) with your system. IBM could effectively start getting end customers to foot the bill for Free software development by IBM and the more of that work they are doing, the more of the work they are likely to get. The rules (well the licenses of most software they would be likely to use) prevent a monopoly, but IBM's power is huge and hence it could attract business to a monopolistic level, at least until a new tiger appears which can take it on in the newly expanded market. IBM don't need software licensing revenue, IBM can exist for the rest of time on it's name provided they can provide people with dependable solutions (i.e. they can charge a profit margin others would dream of, just because it's IBM).
What dissappoints me is that this all makes me recall many moments while I worked for Corel International Linux Support when I tried making people see the benefits of eating our own dogfood. I truly felt (though I mattered squat) they should have moved the next (or following if already too late) version of their Office and Draw suites to QT (or gtk, I only really say qt as they had already committed to KDE on the desktop and had peeople working on it) and start consolidating on their work. They were deciding what system to buy for the Linux Support desk, and I asked why they didn't just adopt a free one! Moving over all their hosting to Linux was another issue and one that was more important in their minds (and judging by netcraft [netcraft.com] it seems they achieved something there I wasn't expecting anymore). It was interesting however to watch the various reactions from managers to administrators, support staff to developers when they realised they had a bit of a Free software zealot in their midst! I even managed to get in my digs at visiting big-wigs (something makes me think that isn't why Corel left the country though). Corel had an opportunity, but they didn't even try (in fact I wonder why they even bothered starting with Linux if they weren't going to go down this route).
IBM would have to be insane not to try this. Really it is a case of when they feel they should make the jump to best effect, and if IBM feel that now is the time to do it, you can be sure it is very doable (for them) because egg on the face here could cost IBM massively and for a long time. I can't help feel that this has been in the works ever since they lost out on OS/2 and if the MS V Linux "Get The Facts" can be taken as evidence that MS is scared, this should be taken as evidence that MS should be petrified! If IBM do follow through with this, the impact in having all the IBM employees worldwide proficient with GNU/Linux/X/??/?? would be significant apart from the developments you would be sure would be seen in each piece o
Thinkpads with Linux ? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Thinkpads with Linux ? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:IBM Profiting from free labor (Score:4, Insightful)
If those well meaning volunteers had not wanted others to use and perhaps even profit from their work, they wouldn't have released it under the GPL, would they?
Re:how strange would it be? (Score:5, Interesting)