Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Linux Business IBM Software Linux

IBM Launching an Open Desktop Solution 224

Posted by Hemos from the bridging-the-gap dept.
DJ_Maiko writes "IBM just announced their intent to release an open desktop solution which they're calling "Open Client Offering." The new offering will make it possible for big businesses to present their employees with a choice of running Linux, Macintosh or Windows software on desktop PCs, using the same underlying software code, which will cut the cost of managing Linux or Apple relative to Windows. If this project succeeds, it will make it unnecessary for companies to pay Microsoft for licenses for items that don't rely on Windows-based software. IBM plans to also roll this out in-house to 5% of their 320,000 employees worldwide. This sure seems like a promising endeavor. "
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

IBM Launching an Open Desktop Solution More

IBM Launching an Open Desktop Solution

Comments Filter:

  • *slashdot dies (Score:5, Funny)

    by Brunellus ( 875635 ) on Monday February 12, 2007 @10:42AM (#17983244) Homepage

    Wait. IBM did it. so it's good. TFM also mentions Novell. IT'S A TRAP. It simplifies license compliance. It allows commercial software. wait, what?

    Slashdot suffers a mental kernel panic

  • Apple And IBM Should Make A Deal (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 12, 2007 @10:47AM (#17983308)
    Since Apple's marketshare continues to flounder down around three percent and the company appears to be more and more focused on the iPod side of the company, Apple should look for a company like IBM to sell off the useful parts of OS X for something like this.

    Apple gets a big wad of cash and goes off to completely focus on digital media. IBM uses OS X/Aqua as the basis for their common application toolkit, Quicktime gets a full parity port to Linux.

    OS X is going nowhere fast, and Linux application toolkits are a fucking embarrassment.

    Do it Apple and IBM, make everyone happy.

    • Re:Apple And IBM Should Make A Deal (Score:4, Interesting)

      by p0tat03 ( 985078 ) on Monday February 12, 2007 @11:15AM (#17983682)

      OSX is going nowhere fast? Apple's desktops may be floundering due to the lack of their killer app (i.e., anything made by Adobe) for the Mactels, their laptops are selling like frickin' hotcakes. Apple is pushing more Mac laptops than ever before.

      Not to mention that OSX is the *only* non-Windows OS that is commonly used by average users.

      Macs as desktops are going nowhere fast, mostly because much of the desktop market is now polarizing into enterprise-level hardware or cheap shite Dell boxen. There simply isn't enough demand for a non-enterprise quality home-use desktop. Laptops on the other hand are a different story, demand for the Macbook is huge around where I live, and interest in buying Mac mobiles is higher than I've ever seen it before.

      • Re:Apple And IBM Should Make A Deal (Score:5, Insightful)

        by MBGMorden ( 803437 ) on Monday February 12, 2007 @11:34AM (#17983924)
        Mac desktops also have pushed themselves into extremes at every corner. If I want a decently priced Mac desktop, I've got two options: iMac or MacMini. MacMini is cheap enough for sure, but it's graphics processor is a joke, and you are stuck tacking on external hard drives if the storage space is insufficient. It's really more like a laptop with the keyboard an monitor included.

        The iMacs have slightly better specs (acceptable at least), but they have the darned monitor built in. Many, many people either already have a monitor and don't want to pay for an extra one hanging off of their computer, or they want the freedom to shop around an buy a non-Apple monitor.

        So in reality, what I really want is a darned tower unit with some expandability and a decent graphics chipset (or at least a slot where I can buy an after market one if I want). Sure Apple makes those, but they start right at $2500.

        Seriously, Apple: make us a regular old tower (you can even throw in fruity colors or whatever) and bring it in under $1000. Heck I'd take the mini specs in a bigger case any day if they'd just give me the ability to plug in a better graphics card.
        • Nope. If you want to get the mini with the better graphics card, you have to buy the grape or lime mini rather than the vanilla one.

          That's always been a personal beef of mine with Apple as well. I like being able to upgrade obsolete components, especially graphics cards. Apple is not at all friendly toward that, because it directly affects their reputation for stability: if you can't control the components, you can't promise stability.
        • Personally, I would like that too. But Apple seems to have something for about 90% of the potential desktop market in all of 6 separate units* (4 iMacs, the Minis are the same minus a processor swap, there's only one Mac Pro with different processors/GPU). Dell, HP, Gateway, or whoever simply can't do that (or don't). It's a massive help to Apple, who move a lot fewer units than those Big 3 PC makers.

          * = and they only have 4 laptop units

        • Re:Apple And IBM Should Make A Deal (Score:4, Insightful)

          by vijayiyer ( 728590 ) on Monday February 12, 2007 @12:28PM (#17984694)
          What you're missing is that you represent a very small market segment of computer saavy people without money to spend. The vast majority of consumers do not care about graphics cards and expandability - they replace computers when they're old and use them like appliances. Most software developers and engineer types who use their computer daily don't find $2500 expensive for a tool they use daily. I'm not saying that you don't represent a valid market - just that a company can't target every single market. You have to pick and choose, or you lose focus on your core business areas.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by p0tat03 ( 985078 )

            Agreed on all counts, and to expand on your point:

            The integrated LCD is wasteful, yes, since it involves throwing out a perfectly good display whenever you change computers. That said, it is also a core aspect of the Macintosh experience. The whole point of the iMac is to take away your tower, your LCD, and the bajillion wires and peripherals that come with it. Monitor cable? None. Monitor power? None. Speaker cables (usually a huge tangle of wiring)? None. You've got a keyboard that goes to your iMac, a

        • I agree that there's a hole in Apple's desktop offerings. They have an ultra-small form-factor PC, an all-in-one, and a high-end workstation, but they just don't have a general/normal tower. It's possible that they don't offer it because their market is still relatively small, and they're figuring that most of the people who would normally buy a Mac would likely go for one of the offerings they have anyway.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Bert64 ( 520050 )
        Adobe are working on apps for intel macs, i have the beta of photoshop CS3 on my macbook, and it even has the SSE optimized modules from the windows version to replace the altivec ones the mac version had before...
        Also, SSE3 can be the default on Mac/Intel because every intel based mac sold had support for SSE3.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Posting AC to avoid the wrath of the Apple crazies.

      Long term Apple has to be looking at the OS market and not seeing much of a future for OS X beyond its niche status. Vista has pretty much closed the gigantic security gap, no matter how much Mac fans don't want to believe it, and regardless of who copied who, Vista is very close to OS X in both appearance and use.

      And now with running Windows on Macs being the number one topic for Apple users, the native OS X app market is in serious trouble since the lure

      • Re:Apple And IBM Should Make A Deal (Score:5, Insightful)

        by ZachPruckowski ( 918562 ) <zachary.pruckowski@gmail.com> on Monday February 12, 2007 @11:36AM (#17983960)
        Long term Apple has to be looking at the OS market and not seeing much of a future for OS X beyond its niche status. Vista has pretty much closed the gigantic security gap, no matter how much Mac fans don't want to believe it

        This remains to be seen. Even if Vista is safer than XP (it probably is), there's not a lot of evidence that says it works. I mean, the fact that you're safe for the first two weeks means essentially nothing. Crackers and exploiters aren't rushing to be first, they're trying to hold their exploits until there are enough people about to make it worthwhile. Spammers/botters/virus-writers pay cash for vulnerabilities. They're not going to exploit Vista until there are enough potential victims to make that cash well-spent.

        With regards to parallels, your logic only holds if Mac sales don't increase. A company is going to lose sales if it wants you to buy parallels and Windows for $250ish to run its software. And they'll be wide open to competitors who decide to offer native solutions.

        Finally, your idea that Windows and Linux will quickly catch up to OS X assume that OS X is a stationary target. Between now and Vienna, 10.5 will ship, and 10.6 as well, assuming Vienna ships on time (mid-2009). Vista is currently about equal to OS X in features and ease-of-use, but that won't be true 4 months from now, and it will be even less true 18-24 months from now.

        • Re:Apple And IBM Should Make A Deal (Score:5, Interesting)

          by EvilMonkeySlayer ( 826044 ) on Monday February 12, 2007 @12:05PM (#17984350) Journal
          I have a minor niggle with the latter part of your mentioning about Vista and OS X. As I mentioned last year [slashdot.org] I have now bought a Macbook and owned it for roughly a couple of months.

          I used Vista quite a bit during its beta/rc stages and then a bit when it got released. I'd just like to say that after having used both for a decent while that Vista may be equal in features but those features are poorly implemented. Case in point the control panel, it has been mutated into a monster.. it's nigh on impossible to find the settings you want to change without faffing about. Eventually I just turn on the classic view for control panel and make do with that.
          Then contrast that with system preferences on OS X where it's well thought out without a million and one options in your face or having to go digging for some minor niggle that you want to disable or change.
          • while that Vista may be equal in features but those features are poorly implemented

            I try to argue by using what I call the "even-if" system. Basically, it boils down to: "Even if everything you say is absolutely correct, you're still wrong". I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt, and still saying that even with all his assumptions (some of which I'd challenge), he still hasn't carried the argument sufficiently. In this specific instance, I'd take Tiger over Vista every day of the week and twice on S

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by cmacb ( 547347 )
          "Finally, your idea that Windows and Linux will quickly catch up to OS X assume that OS X is a stationary target. Between now and Vienna, 10.5 will ship, and 10.6 as well, assuming Vienna ships on time (mid-2009). Vista is currently about equal to OS X in features and ease-of-use, but that won't be true 4 months from now, and it will be even less true 18-24 months from now."

          I don't think the post to which you are responding said anything about the relative quality of Vista vs OS X. Nor did it say that Appl

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by jedidiah ( 1196 )
        The flexibility of the Unix desktop is hardly a fault.

        The Unix desktop can literally be all things to all people. It can achieve much if not all of the fru-fru of Macs of various eras without completely alienating people who already have well established habits and preferences.

        The fact that people want to clone Macs on Linux just mean they think there's some merit in the idea in terms of the source being useful and the destination being possible. This would contrast to attempting to adapt either WinDOS or O

    • Re:Apple And IBM Should Make A Deal (Score:5, Insightful)

      by mstroeck ( 411799 ) on Monday February 12, 2007 @11:15AM (#17983688) Homepage
      Apple has been selling more Macs in the last several quarters than ever before in its entire history, and been making insane profits. They also continue to develop all of their desktop and server software at an utterly bewildering pace. I don't know exactly what you're talking out of, but I have a suspicion.
    • I'm not so sure about this. I know a lot of people buying Macs lately. It is taking a while to catch on, but give them 5 years, and I think you'll start to see apple get a much higher market share, at least in the home computer front. Businesses may take longer to switch over due to needs for legacy applications.
    • - Apple market share is increasing (trend has been positive for several years).

      - Apple market share outside of the server closet is presumably larger than Linux market share, but I don't know how it can be measured.

      - Apple continues to set records for Macintosh units shipped quarter after quarter. Considering the ~34% margin that Apple reports on Macintosh hardware, they are unlikely to hurry out of that business.

      - Apple knows that it is OS X and bundled applications that sell Mac hardware. Steve Jobs sai

  • Isn't this old news? (Score:3, Informative)

    by cerberusss ( 660701 ) on Monday February 12, 2007 @10:49AM (#17983336) Journal
    Isn't this old news? I thought that the Lotes Notes client was available for Linux for ages?

    Anyway, Novell has had its groupwise client available in Java for some time now. Running on linux was flawless, and not at all limited to Novell's SuSe (I've got it running here on Debian). And if you don't like Java, there's an excellent web-based client.

  • how open are... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by duranaki ( 776224 ) on Monday February 12, 2007 @10:51AM (#17983372)
    Lotus Notes, Sametime, Domino... ? It seems like 'Open' has officially been overloaded to the point of being meaningless.

    • Where have you been? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Andy Dodd ( 701 ) <atd7&cornell,edu> on Monday February 12, 2007 @11:02AM (#17983498) Homepage
      "Open" has been overloaded to the point of meaningless for years, if not decades.

      The Open Group, anyone?

    • Re:how open are... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by nudeatom ( 740966 ) on Monday February 12, 2007 @11:05AM (#17983552)
      Depends on your point of view The next release of the Notes client is based on the Eclipse framework and mulitplatform from the get-go. This too me is a lot more open than other offerings. It also includes ODF word-processor and spreadsheet. The Sametime chat client is bascially running Jabber, which is an open format. plugis are available for Gaim to coinnect Domino is not open, but there you go. They are making moves, and those moves appear to be a long term strategy rather than a short term publicity grab. But this is just my view. What do I know
      • The Sametime protocol is not at all like XMPP (Jabber).

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Bert64 ( 520050 )
        There's nothing wrong with closed implementations that comply with open standards, this is the whole point of having standards. If the standard is useful enough, and there's demand, then someone will create an open implementation of it.
        So long as your never _FORCED_ to use a particular closed implementation.
    • Here's a short list of some of the open standards supported by Notes and Domino:

      SMTP. IMAP. HTTP. HTTPS. Java. HTML. XML. SOAP. NNTP. CORBA. X.509. LDAP. SAX. DOM. ODBC. SQL.

      That's why Notes and Domino can be considered open. The new Notes even more so, as it's build on Java and Eclipse.
  • "IBM plans to also roll this out in-house to 5% of their 320,000 employees worldwide. This sure seems like a promising endeavor. "

    So out of their 320,000 employees they will have about 16,000 employees using this new open desktop solution. It would seem like a hard solution to sell to other's if the company selling it will barley be using it.

    If IBM really wanted to make this a proven solution as an alternative to "big business" they should show that a company as large as them could roll out sure a large ch

    • Re:Why use something the creators barly use? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by jackharrer ( 972403 ) on Monday February 12, 2007 @11:18AM (#17983726)
      Don't forget that rolling it will be a major IT challenge. 5% as a start doesn't sound very well but 16,000 is quite a lot of workstations. And add servers. That's a lot of beta testers, IMHO.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Bert64 ( 520050 )
        And managed solutions like this are aimed at the majority of office workers, who need very little control of their systems and a very limited subset of applications for them.
        At any technology company, IBM being no exception, there will be a lot of highly skilled technical employees who have diverse requirements and the knowledge required to manage these systems themselves, a one-size-fits-all solution is totally inappropriate when you have skilled technical employees who need to develop code or such.

    • Sanity Check -Re:Why use something the creators... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by almondjoy ( 162478 ) on Monday February 12, 2007 @11:44AM (#17984070)
      Most IBMers (like me) live with their thinkpads joined to their hips. Do you want to try migrating 320K employees from Windows to Linux in one go? Think about organizational impact. Think about your customer base. Give some thought to the migration challenges that are illustrated in this book (of which I was the project leader)...

      Linux Client Migration Cookbook, Version 2 [ibm.com]

      IBM is a solutions company. A lot of us need to live (compute) within the same environments as our clients do. As more companies consider Linux on the desktop, more of our business will head that way, and consequently more IBMers will to.

      So you should look at this announcement in context. This offering is a yet another clear indication that Desktop Linux is gaining market momentum, and IBM sees a need (and is making a big investment in internal transformation as well as product offerings) to be able to meet the needs of clients that are increasingly demanding more diversity in client computing solutions.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by hey ( 83763 )
      I enjoy using barley.
      Is it free as in beer?

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by teh_chrizzle ( 963897 )

      they will have about 16,000 employees using this new open desktop solution. It would seem like a hard solution to sell to other's if the company selling it will barley be using it.

      are you kidding? 16,000 users would quadruple the apple and linux userbases overnight!

  • Late to the party? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by BlueStraggler ( 765543 ) on Monday February 12, 2007 @11:01AM (#17983492)

    I switched to Apple so that I could run Mac, Windows, and Linux software on the same computer. It's really the killer feature of the Mac platform, so I'd expect that any computer company with sense would be trying to get on board.

    • ...this is about IBM offering a business the ability to run the OS of their choice, and have unified collaborative working across all platforms. i'm presuming what this actually means is a) running notes/domino on windows, linux etc, and b) charging you out the wazoo for the consultancy they require to make it all work.
    • Nevermind that they cost about twice the cost of a normal PC.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by gosand ( 234100 )
      I switched to Apple so that I could run Mac, Windows, and Linux software on the same computer. It's really the killer feature of the Mac platform, so I'd expect that any computer company with sense would be trying to get on board.


      I am just curious, what are the 'must have' Mac apps? I am not a Mac person, never have been. I just don't know what their killer apps are that would warrant switching to their platform. Or was is just the platform?

  • I think MS could survive the death of Windows... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by StressGuy ( 472374 ) on Monday February 12, 2007 @11:04AM (#17983528)
    but, I don't think they would survive the loss of the dominance of MS Office. They can port Office to Apple, Linux, heck, Solaris if they wanted to....but if ODF takes off, and they now have to compete with Sun and IBM....seem to me that's a much bigger threat.

    my 2 cents anyway

    • Re:I think MS could survive the death of Windows.. (Score:5, Funny)

      by Stamen ( 745223 ) on Monday February 12, 2007 @11:12AM (#17983650)
      "They can port Office to Apple, Linux, heck, Solaris if they wanted to...."

      Yeah, that would be great if they would just port Office to Apple. I'd probably get a Mac if they did that. Oh and if Macs could read my PC floppy discs, and use my two button mouse, and my LCD monitor. I wish Macs could do all that; dare to dream.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Bert64 ( 520050 )
        Actually, they can't exactly port it *to* apple, since some of the office apps at least were originally written for apple. They can, and have, ported from apple to windows.
    • I agree with you wholeheartedly. I mean, look at all of the indications that we see from the company today. It is obvious that Microsoft realizes that Windows isn't always going to be a big cash cow. They have expanded their business so much over the past few years to add the Xbox, ramping up the search engine, expanding tools included in Office as well as adding new applications to their arsenal. I mean, how often do you see a Windows commercial anymore? You don't ... you see commercials about their other

      • Re:I think MS could survive the death of Windows.. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by ahg ( 134088 ) on Monday February 12, 2007 @12:15PM (#17984488)

        However, people do not upgrade their computers as often anymore just because hardware is not improving at such a fast pace as before.


        While I agree that people aren't upgrading as often, I don't think it's ue to lack of Improved performance, rather just lack of perceived improved performance. You know... when doubling the speed of your computer meant an operation that took 8 seconds, now only takes 4 seconds, you're gonna sit-up and take notice and be motivated to plunk down another $1000 bucks for the latest machine. However, once your going from 1/8 of a second to 1/16 of second or some other insignificant time savings, then the Average Joe, just doesn't care. Of course the fact that we're increasingly working with more complex and larger data, does help push the technology. (i.e. Average Joe who used to play with his 3 Megapixel photos on his 500 MHz machine without a problem may suddenly feel the slow down when he buys that new 8 megapixel camera.) - It seems to me that it the upgrade cycle is now linked with the adoption of other technologies outside of the PC itself, than it has been in the past. Other technologies certainly don't move at the same pace as computers. If a 1 megapizel camera was $200-300 in 1997, and if the pixel count doubled every 18 months... we would be seeing 64 Megapixel cameras in that same price range.
    • If ODF takes off, Microsoft would simply adopt it as the primary format for their documents. An office suite of software is far more than a document standard, it's an interface and functionality both of which appear absent from Open Office and other Microsoft competitors. If Microsoft simply adopted the format now they'd extinguish any advantage ODF gives their competitors.
      • a) Have you ever actually used Open Office ? How recent a version ?

        b) What features were missing from OO which you use in MS Office ?

        Just curious.
    • they'd NEVER survive the death of Windows OS IMO. The reason being it has been the control of the OS and its APIs which have allowed them to push all their other software onto users. Today, they are a 3 headed snake with the Windows OS, Windows Office, and Windows Server software providing close to equal revenues and profits. BUT, you take away the Windows OS and the other two fall fast and hard.

      They have, and will continue to do, anything to protect the Windows OS. With the profits of these business in the

  • Oh Noes! (Score:4, Funny)

    by fragMasterFlash ( 989911 ) on Monday February 12, 2007 @11:06AM (#17983572)
    You mean the living hell that is the Lotus Notes user interface is going to take over my entire desktop? *Head asplodes*

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by FooAtWFU ( 699187 )
      They have a new Lotus Notes interface. It's based on Eclipse. It's actually... well, umm, it's tractable, at least. Try some screenshots [wikipedia.org] and some newer screenshots [wikipedia.org].

      People also forget that Notes isn't really an email program. It's a distributed database access and replication suite, and email just happens to be the one sort of database that it's used for most.

  • I didn't see any mention of it in the article, and I don't feel like digging 'round the net to check, but who's guessing this is basically a vm or wraps a vm around the app?

  • IBM has been offering 'alternatives' for years (Score:4, Insightful)

    by dtjohnson ( 102237 ) on Monday February 12, 2007 @11:12AM (#17983646)
    IBM has been trying to convince people for years to use 'alternatives' to Windows but they always do a really bad job of saying why anyone should use the alternative and then the alternatives die a horrible drawn-out painful death in the arms of the early adopters. The only real alternatives to Windows are Linux and Apple and both of those will make much better cases to prospective adopters without any 'help' from IBM. IBM does not really want anyone to use Apple because they don't play in that space and IBM has never gone anywhere with Linux even though at one time they said they were going to switch a substantial portion of their worldwide desktops over to it, which they never did.

    • Re:IBM has been offering 'alternatives' for years (Score:4, Informative)

      by truthsearch ( 249536 ) on Monday February 12, 2007 @12:00PM (#17984274) Homepage Journal
      You're speaking as a home user or small business. IBM has made billions in consulting, much of it helping large companies use Linux. IBM has done a lot to support Linux, both directly (installations, code contributions) and indirectly (e.g. porting applications).

      at one time they said they were going to switch a substantial portion of their worldwide desktops over to it, which they never did.

      Last time I checked most employees were simply given the option, and could choose to switch to Linux if it didn't hurt their productivity (long term). Many made the switch. It's not easy getting 300,000+ people to switch without hurting productivity. They're slowing doing it.

  • What a great idea. (Score:4, Funny)

    by Weasel5053 ( 910174 ) on Monday February 12, 2007 @11:15AM (#17983686)
    They're planning on calling it "Java"

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by RPI Geek ( 640282 )
      They're planning on calling it "Java"

      This is more insightful than funny; I wish I had mod points.

      IBM already makes cross-platform IT management products (or rather frequently, it buys them and incorporates them into their own high-priced products). The overall term for the many products in this family is IBM Tivoli [ibm.com]. Interestingly, much of it runs on Java. It's a very mature line of products used by lots of high-profile companies worldwide, and it makes IBM many millions of dollars.

  • Nice Idea But... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by eno2001 ( 527078 ) on Monday February 12, 2007 @11:18AM (#17983716) Homepage Journal
    ...completely unworkable. There are definite "must haves" in terms of software that a solution like this will never be able to account for. You have web applications that rely on IE in order to work. This solution will NEVER solve that problem. You have local executable applications that people need to get their work done on a day-to-day basis. If these applications rely on a specific platform, (Windows, Mac or Linux) you will not be able to solve that. Those are two really big issues that IBM will never solve with this solution.

    Personally, I've been able to avoid running Windows at home and at work, but I've also made an investment in time and effort to get things running on Linux the way I like. Some of it was just by moving to the FOSS alternative. Some of it was accomplished with Wine (for some Windows apps). And some of it can only be pulled off in a virtual machine. However, there are still some things even someone like me can't do unless I would actually run Windows. Fortunately I don't have those needs. :) The time invested and the knowledge gained far outweighs the convenience of sticking with a "standard platform". But that's only for me. For others who have needs that can't be met by alternative platforms or don't wish to invest time and energy into adapting, my route doesn't work. IBM's solution likely doesn't apply here either.

    Like I said, nice idea, but...

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by aug24 ( 38229 )
      Where in the world did you get the idea that if a solution is only valid for 95% of cases then it's no good for anything?

      Windows is NFU for a few percent of cases (like me) because it doesn't come with certain software... does that mean Microsoft should give up and go home? Of course not.

      Justin.
    • One way to accommodate Windows-only apps is to create a version of WINE tailored to run that app (like Crossover). It's not pretty, but it has worked in the past.
    • but you run Slackware, don't you?

    • No. Large corporations, unlike small and medium businesses, tend to run standardized suites of up-to-date software and actively managed systems by an internal team of programmers. You evidently haven't seen an IBM salesman in action; they can and will certainly get large corporations to port their software to other platforms if it's necessary to seal the deal with a few extra AIX or AS/400 boxes.

      Most of the "local applications" you speak of are frontends to databases; porting them is trivial. I have yet to

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by g2devi ( 898503 )
      > You have web applications that rely on IE in order to work. This solution will NEVER solve that problem.

      What you don't mention is that many of those apps have to be recorded to work with IE 7. If your depends on idiosyncrasies that exist in (undocumented, but widely used) IE6 instead of (documented) WW3 standards, don't be surprised when things don't work quite as you expect in succeeding versions of IE. If you don't follow good practices and use a good platform independent web API (both HTML and Javas
  • IBM is the real winner in the console wars by supplying chips to all the participants. This seems to be what they are best at. Their software? Not so good, at least not by their track record. I can't see this getting anyone in the industry excited.

    They should take a clue from Apple and look for new markets. I fully expect to see Apple branded TV's within five years as they make the move from the desktop to the living room. Yes, their PC's will still exist, but they will make barrels of moneythe other way.

    IB

    • No (Score:2)

      by RMH101 ( 636144 )
      IBM are schizophenic. IBM hardware and IBM Global Services. One is in the business of making hardware (and precious little of it now, too, as Lenovo do a lot of it for them) and the other is in the business of services: i.e. the death of a thousand consultants. They are separate organisations, and are emphatically NOT in the business of putting hardware in your living room...

      If you were to examine the size of service contracts (including software!) then they'd typically be Very Large Indeed. The fact

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by KokorHekkus ( 986906 )
        Well said. Just wanted to add for those that doesn't know how enormous IBM Global Services is: in 2005 Global Services had an revenue of 47.3 billion making up about half of IBM:s revenue... compare that to the total revenue for Microsoft last year: 46 billion (according to Yahoo Finance)

        See http://biz.yahoo.com/ic/103/103329.html [yahoo.com]

    • Re:IBM should stick to chips (Score:4, Insightful)

      by stevesliva ( 648202 ) on Monday February 12, 2007 @11:52AM (#17984166) Journal

      IBM is the real winner in the console wars by supplying chips to all the participants. This seems to be what they are best at. Their software? Not so good, at least not by their track record. I can't see this getting anyone in the industry excited.
      As someone who works for IBM's chip development group, I find this statement pretty amusing. We've certainly had some historically great quarters recently, but the software group is growing revenues at a good clip, and their margins are like 80%.

      It's really amazing to see all the opinions about IBM fly by here on Slashdot... you know, how IBM only sells services, but is the second-largest software company (yes, in terms of software revenues) after Microsoft. Or how it doesn't make computers any longer, even though it's the largest server and supercomputer seller, and leading in sales of blade computers.

      And that only speaks to sales misconceptions, to say nothing of whether 18 gagillion patents are evil weaponry, a defensive posture, truly valuable, a load of crap, or good for the defense of open standards... Or how it forced customers into proprietary systems in the 1960s, but hasn't End-of-Lifed those ancient architectures, or forced radical change to the systems running applications developed 30 or 40 years ago.

      You can pretty much say two opposite things about IBM in any regard and have them both be true. Anyways, back to working for my dying-since-1982 east coast anachronism of a company...
  • Does it only support windows, linux, and os x, or is there the option of running code from other operating systems? Specifically, I'd like to see solaris support, because your machine running code meant for all those different OSs is really only useful if I can telnet into it [slashdot.org].
  • There's little doubt that there's significant interest in getting out from under Microsoft's thumb. Most people seem to know it, too. Why do people insist on running Windows even though they know Microsoft is hurting them? It is the classic profile of an abusive relationship. [citadel.org] The abused party has trouble ending the relationship, even though he/she knows it's the right thing to do.

  • IBM *could* make Linux the standard (Score:5, Interesting)

    by realmolo ( 574068 ) on Monday February 12, 2007 @11:55AM (#17984210)
    They are probably the only company with the cash and skills to "fix" everything that is wrong with Linux on the desktop. But they don't do it.

    Why isn't IBM throwing money at the Ubuntu guys? Why isn't IBM basically bribing Adobe to port their apps to Linux? Why isn't IBM paying their software guys to write shitloads of GPLs drivers? Why aren't they writing *all kinds* Linux software to fill in the gaps that would make it better than Windows in every way?

    I'm always amused by the companies that want to "beat" Microsoft, but don't seem to really TRY. If Linux is going to displace MS on the desktop, or even be a real competitor, then it's going to take BILLIONS of dollars and at least 5 years of development. IBM could do it. But they don't. Why not?
    • "They are probably the only company with the cash and skills to "fix" everything that is wrong with Linux on the desktop. But they don't do it"

      'The product .. pulls together software IBM has developed in-house and with partners Novell Inc and Red Hat Inc .. We worked with the open source community and found a way to write software once that will work regardless of operating system [indiatimes.com] '

      was Re:IBM *could* make Linux the standard

    • Re:IBM *could* make Linux the standard (Score:5, Insightful)

      by evilviper ( 135110 ) on Monday February 12, 2007 @01:30PM (#17985668) Journal

      They are probably the only company with the cash and skills to "fix" everything that is wrong with Linux on the desktop. But they don't do it.

      What YOU are interested in Linux for, and what IBM is interested in Linux for, are vastly different things.

      IBM couldn't care less about how easy Linux is to setup for your grandmother. They like Linux as a solution to be deployed on company computers, low maintenance costs, easy administration (by paid professionals).

      Whether your $5 sound card works under Linux doesn't matter one bit to IBM, or to any company that has more than a handful of machines.

      As far as IBM's purposes are concerned, Linux has long been ready for use everywhere they care about. You can run Linux on all your IBM servers and workstations without problems.
    • The short answer is that IBM (like all companies) only invest with the hope of a return. Like you stated, it will take IBM billions of dollars to fill in the gaps. IBM won't commit billions of dollars just because you don't like Microsft. IBM needs returns on its investment and an all out assault won't guarantee a break in the status quo.
  • It'd be nice if the article actually discussed HOW this works. Is it along the lines of Java, where you write it once (theoretically) and it'll run on any platform that has a compatible VM? Or are these universal/fat binaries? Or perhaps this is some way of abstracting the code so that it'll run as-is on any x86 platform (so PPC Macs need not apply?)
  • "We worked with the open source community and found a way to write software once that will work regardless of operating system. It will run on Windows, Macintosh or Linux," said Scott Handy, IBM's vice president of Linux and open source."

    s/the open source community/Sun and \1
    s/found a way/Sun provided a way

  • Direct Link (Score:3, Informative)

    by neiljt ( 238527 ) on Monday February 12, 2007 @01:42PM (#17985846)
    Details [ibm.com] from the Horse's Mouth [ibm.com] (so to speak).

  • linux makes a better business OS anyway (Score:4, Insightful)

    by cas2000 ( 148703 ) on Monday February 12, 2007 @04:19PM (#17988272)
    most businesses are better off with linux desktops than windows desktops. staff can run word processors, spreadsheets, email clients, web browsers and other standard applications. without the viruses, trojans, keyloggers, botnets, spamware, spyware and other malware. and the system will be locked down, so that the users can't install games, stupid screensavers and other crap that either make the system unstable or are a vector for virus/trojan infection or both.

    there's also gnucash, sql ledger, and other financial applications. or Crossover Office if they really need to run MYOB or Quickbooks (dunno if they run on Wine yet).

    then their office computer will be an appliance for actually doing work, rather than a toy for wasting time and fiddling with the settings.

    gamers might need windows because of the huge range of games available for windows. office workers don't.

Slashdot Top Deals

If Machiavelli were a hacker, he'd have worked for the CSSG. -- Phil Lapsley

Close