Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Linux Business

NYTimes on IBM and Linux 127

Posted by Hemos from the unlikely-team-up dept.
Quite a number of people have written in about today's business section headline in the New York Times: IBM Goes Counterculture with Linux . Beyond just a good title, it delves into the increasing pairing of IBM and Linux as well as some of the history behind it. The article also talks about the commitment from the top levels in IBM - from Louis Gerstner down. The other interesting aspect is IBM's recognition that Linux is a way for them to regain some of the ground that they have lost to Sun and Microsoft.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

NYTimes on IBM and Linux More

NYTimes on IBM and Linux

Comments Filter:

  • What the experts have to say about Linux (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Microsoft is really unreliable, but Linux is worse.
    Ken Thompson, father of Unix

    Linux is free only if your time has no value.
    Jamie Zawinsky

    Linux is obsolete.
    Andrew Tanenbaum

    Linux is 30 year old technology. It's just a notch above Luddism.
    Bob Metcalfe
  • "The preferred language of the young programmers they were hiring was Linux."

    Hmm. I thought it was C ;)
  • While calling Unix a language is obviously nonsensical it may have been referring to linux
    `culture'. To the extent that Linux implies a whole heap of other things, including many languages
    and a general philosophy of how to solve problems it is possible to say that `young programmers express
    their solutions in Linux'.

    Of course it is far more likely to PHB confusion in action.

  • MWave (Score:1)

    by Hallow ( 2706 )
    If IBM's so pro-Linux now, why don't the release mwave drivers already? Stinkers.

  • What we are seeing right now is the reverse of the Unix Wars, the big bang running in reverse. Where Unix splintered into countless variants, there is now a trend backwards towards consolidation in Linux. And IBM has very good reasons to start folding their AIX functionality into Linux (disclaimer: I have no knowledge of IBM's real motivations here, this is just guesswork).

    IBM doesn't just have operating systems, they have a lot of software that runs on top of the operating system, in the area of Unix this means AIX. Linux has a lot more forward momentum than AIX does, or is likely to ever have. The more AIX functionality that Linux has, the easier it will be to port their server software onto Linux.

    Why did they port JFS to Linux? Probably because SGI had upped the ante by dumping their journalling file system onto Linux. That means that if IBM wanted to retain the advantage of their experience with JFS, they would have to make sure their journalling file system caught on and became the dominant standard.

    While Linux will have several journalling file systems supported under it, in the end support will probably dwindle to all but two, which most likely will have different reasons for surviving (speed versus reliability optimization would be a likely scenario). IBM wants to be sure that JFS is one of them. Likewise other extra bits of functionality that different proprietary Unixes have are going to battle it out for the defacto standard. IBM will probably start trundling out those other pieces in competition.

    That is a point to counter the fork-FUDders. The fact is that branches can die. Happens all the time in evolutionary biology. Same in the computer industry. One might point out that word processing effectively splintered among dozens of different incompatble programs, and sort of consolidated in the end around Microsoft Word.

    Yes, Linux can fork but what is going to keep both forks going forward? There needs to be drive and encouragement to sustain both (or more than two) prongs. In the *BSD camp, that happened because they fill different niches. OpenBSD says that they're going to be secure and that's that, anyone who doesn't like the limitations can go use some other *BSD variant.

    So the Linux wars are going to be the opposite of the Unix wars, where everyone throws in their features and tries to get theirs to become the dominant functionality inside of Linux. And IBM has a lot of reason to want to win those wars.
  • Please stop this. I dont like hearing from friends "oh, the ACs are after you again on slashdot".
  • They help apache, linux. They are already have linux solutions soon they are have linux running on their BIG Machines for sale. So I can not untill those are fully supported


    http://theotherside.com/dvd/ [theotherside.com]
  • Hmm, there are certainly some gross historical inaccuracies...

    Its effort in personal computer software, OS/2, was quickly crushed by Microsoft's market-dominating Windows.

    As usual, all the journalist knows about is the brief attempt to catch the mainstream desktop with Warp 3. Ignore the fact that the OS was pretty damn huge, and still is today, in certain (very big) niches. Ignore that it was first written by Micro$oft, quite a while before Windows 3.x was around - I still have the video clip of Bill Gates saying "we at M$ strongly believe that OS/2 is the OS of the ninetees". If IBM hadn't abandoned the marketing drive behind OS/2, it would have a big chunk of the file and application server market today, if not the desktop.

    Even IBM, which plans eventually to use Linux as its unifying Unix platform (shelving AIX),

    Hello? Somebody got seriously confused here.

  • I think this is an important part of why IBM is interested in Linux. They need very smart people and smart tech people like to take things apart and put them together in new ways. That is easier to do in Linux than with MS software.

  • yes.

    (why is the vernacular "or" exclusive?)

    thi [glug.org]

  • And does "getting MS back" seem like a sound business strategy to you?

    Yes, if it means taking billions in revenue away from them!
  • A$$wipe? stick it where the sun doesn't shine, AC. Whether or not I've invented anything has nothing to do with my critique of your post.

    Metcalfe: I'll leave it to other /. posters to correct me if I am wrong, I doubt we're even talking about the same guy. The Metcalfe I'm referring to writes articles for Sm@rt Reseller, and his articles are often rebutted by other writers for the same magazine. He blasts Linux but never seems to get the details right.

    Open Source debugging doesn't work because Linux still has bugs? You're nuts. All major code bases have bugs, for example look at Win2K -- the so called gold version was announced with 65,000 bugs (28,000 major according to Microsoft), but we'll never know what they are. At least with Open Source, the bugs are known and any number of people can work on eliminating them.

    Finally, you didn't even get the quote right -- Jobs said "Unix", not Linux. And as to who cares what Steve Jobs says? Well, a whole lot of people with better vocabularies and less biases than you, apparently.

    • A. Bob Metcalfe is not an expert, he's a known M$ bigot. Other folks at the same magazine(s) shake their heads and walk away from his opinions as fast as they can.
    • B. M$ is not free, and it consumes way more of my time dealing with stupid errors than Linux ever has (Open Source debugging is faster than closed every time).
    • C. Linux may have been based on Unix (30 year old technology), but Steve Jobs said it best "I have seen the future and the future is Unix". Not Win anything. What Linux may be i one of the best of the new 'nixes. By the way (BTW) Airplanes are based on nearly 100 year old technology too. Age != low quality.
  • Actually I thought differently after reading it. I got the feeling IBM was doing anything BUT playing it for it's current hype. The fact that they are in for the long haul and aren't even expecting a return on the investment for 5 years at least seems very encouraging to me. One of my fears about the bandwagon lately is that companies were looking to hop on linux/bsd fast and get out like a day trader. If they didn't see the return they expected they would and then the articles about how linux really DIDN'T work would come flooding.

    I'mn still of the opinion and thought that I don't give a rat's ass what the coporate market thinks, I'll use linux/bsd until something better comes along. I can't see going back now and I don't think anyone else will either.
  • ... and there is a smaller conceptual jump between Linux and AIX, Solaris or IRIX than with NT. He who has the most applications in your desired market segment wins and if learning a dev environment through OpenSource hacking gives you a leg up on the competition, companies are not going to overlook a gift horse, especially if it can deny programmer talent (and mindshare) to the opposition. Hardware is a commodity, OS are becoming a commodity, the fight over the next few years is to commoditise web standards through XML as quickly as possible to dominate a profitable (ie persistant income) service niche. After that it's anyone's guess as the concept of market forces will be different (perhaps more driven by fads trying to gain footholds in the teeth of entrenched lifestyle thematic branded companies).

    The only thing you can be sure of is to expect more Tux memorabilia.

    LL
  • Okay, so they could just make their existing MWave driver source code public. Then at least we could implement similar Linux drivers and use the hardware in the same way. More documentation would allow making more use of the hardware, but that's not needed when simply porting existing code (except in odd situations where code does not show hardware timing issues).
  • If you're having problems seeing the article because you only see a blank page, wait a little while. The NY Times server for that department says:
    Server Error
    We're sorry, but we are temporarily experiencing a server error. Our systems administrators have been notified and are working to fix the problem. Please wait a few moments, then press Reload or Refresh in your Web browser. If the problem persists, please exit your Web browser and try again. We regret the inconvenience.
  • the topic isn't, the movement is.

    Giving away something for free in the U.S., is akin to setting fire to a herd of cattle in India.

    --
  • IBM's betting the farm on the future of Linux and Open Source ideals taking off. Big Risk. Linux as fully mainstream does have a long way to go, but with big guns like IBM making so much noise, it allows Linux and similar efforts to ride on the PR coattails.

    Yeah, it's possibly a big risk now (and my following observation may be heavily biased by hearing about Linux a lot through frequenting /.) but...

    I'm thinking that it's not _that_ big of a deal, and that IBM isn't really (and knows that it isn't) sticking its proverbial neck out for Linux here. I mean, sure, Linux hasn't [completely] taken over "the desktop" yet, but we all know that Linux has been getting publicized a lot lately, and that a lot of people at least know about it, etc. Therefore, yes, go IBM! but I wouldn't sit there and give them a rubber cookie for their efforts..
  • Most technological innovators are continually blindsided by the newest technology which upsets their world view. Just as those who believed that radio was earth-shattering failed to understand why television would supplant radio in the homes of the nation, so do those of prior technologies fail to understand why Open Source, and Linux in particular, subverts the OS paradigm and the dominance of large companies.

    There are few Jules Vernes or other such visionaries amongst the current crop of old techies. Just as those who are at the top of the Open Source wave will be blindsided by the next technological revolution, so are those of past revolutions.

  • I hear that!

    They may say the embrase Linux, but they refuse to share ideas with us. Such as the Mwave specs, they are still locked into the it has to be done our way deal rather than the Some way any way lets get it done approach.
  • One minute they are embracing Windows 2000, next week it is monterey, Linux.

    The truth is IBM embracing everything and are so huge they can afford to.

  • When I see supported versions of the ADSM/TSM backup product or DCE/DFS for Linux, I'll give them cudos, not before. Talk is really cheap. Like McDonald telling everybody they'll start off on the net to raise stock value.

  • IBM provides meeting space at its Madison Ave. headquarters building to both LXNY, and NYLUG.

    I missed the FAO Schwarz party they hosted, but that was mighty nice of them also.

    I for one, have never doubted that IBM probably had Microsoft in mind when they decided to get involved in supporting Linux and the Linux user groups.
  • Quite frankly, more puff is what linux and free (as in freedom) software need. We all know and love the stuff, but how many newbies have you converted in the last month? We need to get the word out, and puff does that extremely effectively. It gets the business-types to ask questions and wonder if free software can work. We need big companies to get the word out for us, we need to penetrate into the big server market (like IBM serves) just as we need to get on the desktop. These pieces in high profile publications are what are going to open the door, and once its open, there is no stopping us.

    People who don't know a thing about ./configure && make && make install need this stuff.

    dd
    "if you hang the blame on the wall

  • Can anyone substantiate this?

    Excuse me if this sounds like BS. I noticed there was no quote to back this up either. There have to be some serious customers out there who are going to expect support and patches well into 2000.

    Doesn't this mean that IBM will be supporting AIX/Monterey/Linux simultaneously? Oh wait, don't forget Dynix/ptx. I guess IBM will sell you whatever you want, as long as they make some money on the transaction and keep the bucks rolling in for support. For a company that's supposedly committed to Linux they sure are committed to a bunch of other unices at the same time.

  • Lot of talk,
    I have a redhat 6.1, db2 server, running IBMHttp server, Websphere 2.03 system with an appliation written in VisualAge 2.0 for Linux ready to go into production. There were minor hiccups with the Java version (1.1.8) but got everything clean out finally. It is good enough for a regular geek (BTW all geeks should learn Java internals henceforth). But not ready for a MS certified (aka brainwashed) professional. There is a lot of "command lines" to play with. Overall I couldnt be more happy. Totally the system costs way way less than any other option we could have come up with. (Around 15K). I am waiting for Websphere 3.0 on Linux. With the EJB engine it would be a screamer on the Linux Box.

    (The other option was
    Sybase 11 - free
    Open sourced EJB - free and
    Apache - free
    Sounds interesting but start playing with them to know their pitfalls
    )
  • I really enjoyed reading that NYT article - and it's good to hear that such a big company seems to "get it".

    So when do they bring us smit/smitty to Linux? I think this is a great system administration tool, and despite some flaws that AIX has, I think this is their major advantage over other *IXes.

    - Stephan.
    --
    Carpe diem!
  • Huyeah, Crazy alright. I should run Windows, an OS that is built like those disproportionate Gothic churches.

    /. needs a buffer organization to answer FAQ questions perhaps through an AI agent. Answering the same questions over and over is very disheartening (geez newspeak).
  • If you want some entrenched market share, look into IBM's RS/6000 Line and AIX. While some RS/6000 stuff may be considered legacy, go check out an S-80 or an SP, and lots of little companies use 43P-140 as servers for Point of Sale terminals. I know that because i used to work for a company selling that type solution and i set up and shipped 2 RS/6K 43P's a week or sometimes more, with the occasional F50 or bigger box. After they buy the box, you buy service (read: support) from sombody and that eventually goes back to IBM, so i would say there is a lot of entrenched market share out there.

    Disclaimer: I work for IBM and my opinions do not represent those of IBM.

    Casey Webster
    Owner
    Trifocus Security, LLC

    Co-op pre-prof programmer
    IBM Corp
    RS/6000 Server Group, APT -- Product test
  • I like AIX a lot, but you need RS/6000 hardware to run it, and unlike a PC, you cant go to your local wholesale parts shop and pick up a sysplaner and a case, a firmware card and everything else you need. And RS/6K's arent very cheap, but they are stable and reliable, if i had some spare cash i/d get myself one to run AIX on. Maybe someday i'll finally go to the surplus store across the street...

    The opinions expressed above do not represent IBM, they are my own.

    Casey Webster
    Owner
    Trifocus Security, LLC

    Co-op pre-prof programmer
    IBM Corp
    RS/6000 Server Group, APT -- Product test


  • >Microsoft is really unreliable, but Linux is
    >worse.
    > Ken Thompson, father of Unix


    Ken is being arrogant and bitter here.


    >Linux is obsolete.
    > Andrew Tanenbaum

    Andrew is spewing sour grapes because some
    Finnish kid used Minux to make a better OS.


    >Linux is 30 year old technology. It's just a
    >notch above Luddism.
    Bob Metcalfe


    Bob is just smoking crack supplied by Gates & Co.

  • You can already run linux apps under AIX by re-compiling with a compatability library, but I don't think this is what they were trying to say.

    I guess they meant linux instead of AIX. But as often happens with these articles, they confuse AIX (the OS) with RS/6000 (the HW).

  • Well, the quote is a bit confusing. The first half makes some sense talking about retooling IBM's operating systems (OS/390 and AIX) which run on IBM's hardware (S/390 and RS/6000). My bet is that the author meant to say something more along the lines of retooling IBM's OS and hardware strategies to ensure Linux runs smoothly on the related platforms.
  • >>While Linux will have several journalling file systems supported under it. IBM wants to be sure that JFS is one of them. Likewise other extra bits of >>functionality... battle it out for the defacto standard. IBM will probably start trundling out those other pieces in competition.... So the Linux wars are going to >>be the opposite of the Unix wars, where everyone throws in their features and tries to get theirs to become the dominant functionality inside of Linux.... And >>IBM has a lot of reason to want to win those wars.

    Actually, we don't think of our JFS porting effort as being in competition with SGI's. Nor do we think it is important for IBM technology to be adopted as the defacto standard technology in Linux. Rather, what we are interested in is

    1) Helping the community to accelerate the maturation of Linux
    2) Helping to keep Linux from permanently forking (microforking is ok, of course).

    The technology we bring forward (like JFS) is not meant to put us in competition. It is meant to offer choice to the community. As long as Linux eventually gets the best possible journalling technology, we fundamentally don't care if it is ours, SGI's, a combination, or something totally different. When the community converges on that best choice, we'll support it, wherever it came from. Branches can come and go as long as the tree doesn't split.

    Thanks.
    Daniel Frye
    IBM Linux Technology Center
    danielf@us.ibm.com
  • If IBM is truly embracing Linux, this is really good for both IBM and the Linux community.

    For IBM, this means that they are showing that they really understand technology. It's a great turnaround for a company that was still pushing the utterly useless OS/2 not that long ago.

    For the Linux community, this means a long-term solid name to rely on for support. That's wonderful, as international companies will be able to get support anywhere, and smaller companies that really want a reliable solution will look at the IBM label as a plus.

    We all know tha good and bad of Linux and where it's best used. It's great to see a large company like IBM (ok, really HUGE company) lending a good deal of support.

    As for this being counterculture, well, the N.Y. Times' ignorance is showing once again. Oh well.

  • Yes, and Mr. Lohr isn't too technically accurate either:

    And Linux has a long way to go. Today, it is used mainly for simpler tasks, like serving up Web pages, instead of for industrial-strength computing chores like financial transaction systems that must handle complex tasks, 24 hours a day, without crashing.

    Ok now boys and girls... Everyone using Linux for complex tasks, send an e-mail with as many details as your pre-IPO status allows :-) to letters@nytimes.com Don't forget your name, address and telephone number!

  • IBM must have SOME entrenched markets left. The only tech job I see advertised as often as "Help Desk Technition" is "AS400 programmer" Must be thirty percent of the newspaper job adverts, and a similiar number of online adverts. Almost enough to make one wish he was an "AS400 programmer".

  • IBM = computers

    That's the way I'd figure it, but nowadays it's probably Microsoft = computers

    Damn kids these days :)

  • Whatever happened to AIX?
  • Good article. But a bit misleading. IBM had a Linux strategy that was announced in March, 1999. This recent announcement builds on that work of 1998/early 1999.

    IBM's Linux strategy development got underway in 1998 not Oct 1999.
  • IBM must have SOME entrenched markets left. The only tech job I see advertised as often as "Help Desk Technition" is "AS400 programmer" Must be thirty percent of the newspaper job adverts, and a similiar number of online adverts. Almost enough to make one wish he was an "AS400 programmer".

    ROTFL.... Heeheeeheee... oh gee... you're so right. &nbsp That 'ole legacy stuff. &nbsp Although I also see alot more "C++/JAVA/COBOL/blah" too...

    ;-)

  • Obviously IBM is just counting on customers to be insane enough to by systems running linux. They could be right, too.
  • Why is it shame that IBM has abandoned OS/2 Warp? I'd rather see IBM starting to support (and maybe develop) Linux than to try to do anything to/with dying/dead operating system (OS/2).
  • I'm sorry, I though it was obvious that this was a joke. It probably is to people who have read the topic ripping the quoted article to pieces but I should have tried to make it more obvious in the post.

    Take a look at this fairly representative sample of that thread if you don't believe me -> I want a piece of this action. [slashdot.org]

    The original Silicon article (for those who need to see an ill-informed and hysterical mess) is Here [silicon.com].

    I guess I should leave being funny to the professionals
  • If you believe the article on Silicon.com then obviously IBM are insane because according to Phil Roberts "Anyone running vital systems on Linux must be crazy,"

  • Bye-bye AIX, I wont miss you. I hope this means that the AIX machines at the University of New Mexico will go to Linux like the CS department has. As far as a compiler goes, AIX's version of g++ let's too many things slip by, like being able to misspell your constructor name without a warning (without using -Wall or -pedantic flags).

    This is a good thing for Linux, and supporting a free OS sure can't hurt IBM. One of the problems with Linux now is that is only seems to work with older hardware. Although I am running SuSE 6.3 with a Voodoo3 3000 and a Sound Blaster Live! That's modern hardware.

    It also seems that universities around the contry are supporting the use of Linux as well. It's easy to require a student to use a free compiler, and saves the university on software costs. This helps ensure that IBM will not be at a loss for Linux programmers in the long run.

  • Talk is cheap. Perhaps you should spend a little time reviewing IBM's contributions to Linux and free software to date before you go shooting your mouth off, given they have ported various of their proprietary products (DB2, for example), adopted free software in place of their own closed alternatives (Apache), freed software they own (Java tools), and enhanced existing free software (JFS for Linux, and the DB2 team's regular flow of kernel patches when DB2 was being ported).

    So some code hasn't come across yet? Perhaps IBM don't percieve a need or interest yet.

  • I have a friend who works at IBM, and just about every time I bump into him, he mentions how much IBM is sold on Linux these days. They're really behind it, it seems.

    IBM was the original recipient of the MS-Shaft back in the 80's. I, personally, think that they view Linux as a real opportunity to get MS back.

    But maybe I'm just being silly.

    --Lenny
  • There is no monolithic "IBM" where Yahweh speaks and it is word. The origins of this effort were that many of the product houses went off and started their Linux porting/development efforts on their own and through some process, call it artesian plumbing, the mandarins began to see that it was Good. Plus it helped that customers started asking about Freenix in the context of paying $$$$ to either/or IBM & MS for WinNT, AIX, what have you. So then the word went forth that IBM would become the Linux supplier of choice because (insert your particular motivational statement here). Plus it helps that Red Hat is down the street from most of the IBM SW product houses in RTP.

    And because it was good and the minions could identify with it strenuously, the personal systems group began uttering the word which was to preload Linux on high end desktops for which you already pay a great deal of support dollars since they're typically deployed in a corporate environment. And not to be seen as Amakelites, the server group say 'Oyez and it is good to be rid of our OS groups so we can get paid w/o having to kick back to them.' Plus it doesn't hurt the support organizations to be able to unbundle the support costs from the cost of the OS itself.

    So in effect what you can do is reduce the up front price of a PC based server which already sells for a premium, eliminate a portion of your internal chargeback to some other division to give you periodic updates and fixes per The Corporate Licence anc collect the support fees yourself and make more money or at least lose less than you did before.

    You can sell that same customer a bevy of products that run over Freenix that you sold them and you support for them, the upfront sunk cost is lower and the customer empty suits are busy congratulating themselves over their latest cost reduction.

    I mean didn't they learn their lesson sinking 10 billion (that's 1x10E10, 10 freaking zeros) down the PC OS rathole? Isn't this a page from MS's own rulebook? Embrace and extend?, Give it away and charge for the support?

    Plus there's even a hidden incentive for the hardware groups to push new models that are Freenixable and they can start to accelerate the customer migrations from older hardwear that does not support Freenix, like most PC servers and RS/6000's.

    Can I get a witness?!
  • From what I have heard inside IBM, MWave isn't IBM's tech to release. But that's just what I've heard. I would listen to a better source if one pops their head up here.


    Bad Mojo
  • 'Xcuse me?? You must be one of those folks who also thinks that MS-DOS is dead. (Trust me, in some ways it lives on inside everything M$ does, because they can't shift the MFC code base very far away from it's origins without retooling most of their applications from the ground up).

    --Attack Mode On--

    1. "Everyone who is at least a little computer savvy has already tried Linux, and the revolution has not happened." Sure, uh-huh right... Most technical folks who have tried Linux (at least since the 2.X kernels) are irevocably committed to moving away from the Windows hegemony permanently ASAP. When you move the mindshare of most young programmers to Linux, you also create a situation where M$ will not remain competitive in terms of quality within a relatively short period of time. Especially given that Open Source is the fastest bug elimination method on the planet.
    2. "The only people who haven't tried or even heard of Linux yet are the total newbies, and Linux has nothing to offer to them." Half a point to you. The Linux desktop is not yet for untrained users. Of course, for the most part Windows NT isn't for untrained users either. (Why did I not mention Win9X? Because it isn't in the same class as NT or Linux, and the corporate world is where the true battle (consulting $) is fought.

      Once that battle is won, it is only a matter of time before the consumer apps follow. (See my first point as to why.)

    3. "With a better product Windows could have been dethroned back in early 1999 when the anti-Microsoft mania was reaching record heights."IMHO you totally miss the point here. You usually don't dethrone a king in one battle -- he's got too many powerful allies. You dethrone him by defeating the allies (or making deals with them) one at a time. Linux is a better product in many many ways. But it hasn't won the battle of the desktops yet, because that battle has yet to be well and truly fought. (The Corel suite and Mozilla are just the opening skirmishes).
    4. "Contrary to most pundits I don't see much growth potential in the small to medium server market." Another half point, based on the fact that Linux setup isn't easy. But I deduct a couple of points because NT admin is worse than Linux, and running a web server without adequate training is stupid because of security concerns. Most small web sites don't run their own servers. They pay for virtual web hosting services.
    --Attack Mode Off--

    "So you can all rest easy now. Linux World Domination is not going to happen, but nevertheless Linux is here to stay."

    Maybe Linux World Domination won't happen... but M$ World domination is coming to an end.

  • > And does "getting MS back" seem like a sound business strategy to you?

    Yes. Because if someone doesn't start getting them back now and then, there won't be anyone left in the game a decade from now.

    The finest of business strategies isn't worth much when you're out of business.

    --
  • On refection, IBM's actions regarding Linux look very much like standard practices among larger companies regarding any new technology.

    Somebody brings the subject to corporate attention and a study group issues a report. If the report is favorable a decision is made to test the waters a bit by dipping the corporate toes into the kiddie pool.

    After a suitable period and more study, if the kiddie pool experience has gone well, we move to wading in the shallows.

    More waiting, more study, more dabbling... If this goes well we identify this new technology as favorable and head directly to the diving well. Nevermind those sissy warm-ups on the low dive - we're going straight for the 10 meter platform!

  • I agree with you...talk is cheap, but....when Big Blue talks, it can be beneficial. I mean...this article, plus the one about linux on a mainframe from a couple of weeks ago, plus whatever other buzz they make in the future will bring Linux to the minds of more people.

    I know the OS/FS movement isn't about advertising and stuff like that, but...see this as an expensive ad that IBM made for themselfs and Linux, with no cost for us :)

    IBM might not be the biggest name in the PC world, but they are still one of the (if not the one) biggest companies when it comes to corporate mindshare...it's good to have em on this side and not paired up with MS :)

    Vox

  • By PoS, I assume you mean a thin client running Linux, like this? [ibm.com]
  • Or am I missing something?

    From the article, referring to an internal IBM report on Linux:

    To combat Sun and Microsoft, the report recommended, IBM should retool all its server operating systems, from the mainframe OS/390 to AIX, IBM's version of Unix, to run Linux smoothly.

    What's this about running Linux on AIX? Make sense to anybody else?

  • A topic that has rows of shelves at Barnes & Noble, gets coverage on CNN and in the NY Times and Wall Street Journal is not, by any stretch of the imagination, counter-cultural.
  • quote from article:

    At the end of October, fresh from a global tour, Sam Palmisano, a senior vice president, reported that the Internet companies he spoke with told him that the preferred language of the young programmers they were hiring was Linux.

    Once again, pseudo tech journalism. The NY Times should be ashamed.

  • "The operating systems wars of today are the equivalent of the browser wars of a few years ago," said Scott Hebner, an IBM software executive. "The operating system is not where the value is."

    The first time IBM thought along these lines, it was wrong and gave MS a foot in the door. Now, still thinking along these lines, IBM seems to be correct, and liable to take away significant MS market share.

    Without the initial blunder, it seems we wouldn't have a major corporation throwing its weight behind an open-source OS.

    It's funny how these things work out.

  • They're even porting things in house and ditching AIX, It's good to see real commitment and not just a fly by token "Yeah we support Linux also". I beleive they really get it and see the industial strength value.


    Yes, this looks promising. In particular, IBM got burned once, long ago, on abandoning old product lines. That led them to make a long-term commitment to the IBM 360 and its descendants. As a company I doubt that they would consider a strategy that did not provide a credible migration plan for their existing customers. And one of the things that Linux has been extremely good at over the years has been to get the last useful value out of existing hardware. Being able to sell a migration plan that includes telling customers that the old hardware can continue to be used for web and file servers until the customer finds it cost effective to get rid of it is a good thing.

    From the article:

    Yet IBM's strategy can succeed only if Linux, which is distributed free, does become a genuine alternative to Windows or Solaris, thereby putting real pressure on their prices. And Linux has a long way to go. Today, it is used mainly for simpler tasks, like serving up Web pages, instead of for industrial-strength computing chores like financial transaction systems that must handle complex tasks, 24 hours a day, without crashing. Even IBM, which plans eventually to use Linux as its unifying Unix platform (shelving AIX), says Linux's true ascendance may not come for five years or so -- until Linux is built up to become more powerful and reliable.


    IBM migrating some of its software onto Linux will certainly bring certain high-end customers to Linux. And it has the potential to let IBM provide an even more scaled-down entry level platform for them than it ever could before. High-end PC servers are not the same beasts as some of IBM's hardware. But they can handle enough RAM and disk to run the same applications, just for a smaller number of concurrent users.
  • The big guys have trouble getting good executive decision support:

    Idea Futures Exchange is one good place. [ideosphere.com]

    I made that claim after a conversation with an employee of one of the industry giants who had a Linux business plan he was pushing back in early 1998. Rather than being vindicated and being given a position with strategic planning, this employee's plan was not only ignored, but he is now being edged out.

    PS: While I was off by about 10% on the exact date of shipment, when I first proposed the above linked claim on Idea Futures (months in advance of the Forbes magazine article on open source), the very idea was considered so preposterous that I had trouble even getting anyone to offer to act as judge it.

  • Remember, though, that while they are "ditching AIX" they're working hard on Monterey. It would seem that their energies would be better spent by devoting more resources to making sure Linux works and works well on everything from their Mainframes to their imbedded real-time systems if for no other reason that a common code base increases the amount of code that's shared within the company and within the community. If a company wants to take profitability out of the OS market Linux is the best way to do it.
  • I, personally, think that they view Linux as a real opportunity to get MS back.

    And does "getting MS back" seem like a sound business strategy to you?
  • is free access to its operating system technology!

    Although it's well known for its huge hardware patent portfolio, they've got incredibly cool behind-the-scenes stuff they've been using in their "Big Iron" for decades - load balancing between all the hardware (disks/processors/storage/communication), virtual machines, fault-tolerance - on and on. PCs & personal workstations are just becoming powerful enough to support a lot of this functionality in a cost-effective manner.

    If IBM allows most of this technology to be consolidated in the main Linux distributions, and "refined" by 10,000 ecstatic geeks, you'll end up with a basic operating system which no company in the world would EVER be able to compete with.
  • Chances are, he really said that. After all, he's in management, not engineering. Don't ding the reporter for reporting the mindless burblings of some PHB type.
  • We'd have to get them back AND make money doing it!
  • IBM wants to make a profit from Win2k. And I'll guarantee that Mr. William H. Gates III will not allow that to happen! Not with the Win2K licensing fees that exist right now.

    This shows that you don't know HOW IBM is going to make a killing on Win2K. IBM Global Services is the group targeting Win2K. They make their money charging by-the-hour support. They are also amongst the best at what they do. If anybody can figure out a way to make Win2K do what it claims to do, I believe it would be IBM GS. They then turn around and charge $X an hour per person on a team sent to go to another company to make Win2K work. Every time it breaks itself, that team or some part of it goes back and makes more money. Trust me, it works.

    And attacking the entire market broadside is a pretty lofty dream, IMHO. We have watched Microsoft try to do that - be everything for everyone and you become a master at nothing! ;-)

    IBM has been doing it sucessfully for about two years now. As I have mentioned in other posts IBM takes the top in every market they can, then strategy number two comes into play. My division of IBM just makes components for other peoples' products. Almost all of Dell's hard drives were made by IBM, many of Cisco's chips and processors, etc. There are very few aspects of the industry where IBM is not making money even if they are not officially playing in that part of the market. IBM just does what it does best: make some of the highest quality parts on the market and pulls a profit every time their competitor sells product X. Eventually, they can just buy out the companies that are doing better things (like Lotus) and integrate them into the great mass that is IBM if they want to.

    Caveat: I work for IBM, but don't represent any opinions but my own.

    B. Elgin

  • Yup. It is true. I work for IBM.

    The biggest thing holding IBMer's back from making the internal changeover to Linux even faster in my department is Lotus Notes. We are still waiting for Lotus to completely debug Notes R5 for Linux before we jump in with both feet.

    As to the MS-Shaft comment, I think its there, but not very much. The main competitor we have is Sun Microsystems. Everything in the server side of things is targeted at Sun, because they are leading right now and we are number two. We are pretty much ignoring HP right now, because they are just getting their managment act together the way IBM did about five years ago. There is a definate leftover animosity towards MS in some groups, but the majority of the anti-MS bias is with the "young pups" like me who are the pro-Linux folks mentioned in the article. Target number one is Sun, with MS, HP, Oracle, etc. being a full tier down in importance.

    Another thing to keep in mind is that IBM does not want to exterminate the competitors (unlike MS). IBM wants to cut their profit margins to almost nothing. IBM has been through the antitrust gauntlet and doesn't want to go back. We play in so many markets, that we can afford to be just staying afloat in a few of them at any given time. I work in the technology division that actually makes all the components that other companies sell in their products. (Did you know that there is a good chance that your GPS is running IBM hardware whatever the name on it is? How about the Transmeta chip? We also do what seems like half of the guts and all the support for Dell computers.) The idea is that when we are at the top of the stack in a particular area, we make lots of money. When we aren't, we sell components to the people who are and make our money that way. Linux is yet another good way to advance that strategy.

    Barring the unexpected, I think IBM will play the waiting game with Linux and hope that the open source community lends them an occaisional hand in exchange. We can expect at least five years of IBM support even if things don't go the way we hope.

    B. Elgin

  • Heh. Don't worry, I'm not flamed up by these comments. I am very happy every time somebody realizes that the TCO is a major factor. Most small to medium companies haven't been getting it over the past decade. IBM has consistantly had a higher initial cost and lower TCO on a majority of their products I have dealt with.

    However, you can't just point this out to the average PHB in a given company, so you work with what you've got. IBM Global Services has been remarkably willing to work with whatever you actually are using. They ask if you want their advice, and they give you good advice if they have it. If you have already made your investment, they work with what you've got. There are high level PHB's all around the country and maybe the world who are subscribing to the latest MS product simply because MS told them to. IBM has services for them just like they do for the really old System 360's from IBM. Anybody who is willing to pay IBM for the help gets it, whatever IBMers' think of that company's understanding and willingness to look beyond the immediate.

    In short, if you made your statements to a decent IBM GS person, that person would go back and gather all the data to help you decide what systems minimize your TCO and tell you how much it would cost to get IBM GS to help you put the whole thing together for the difficult first part of the process. Global Services isn't paid to push IBM products, they are paid to give the customer what the customer asks for. Sometimes you get what you ask for if you already "know" what is best for you. If you ask for advice, they will plug IBM, of course, but let you do your own research and help you whatever you decide. Their goal is to make money by helping you and making you want to call them back the next time you need help.

    I can't vouch for any given member of Global Services I don't know, of course, but I have been pretty impressed with all of the ones I've worked with. They have a multi-billion dollar backlog of work most of the time, so they aren't going to screw you for the fun of screwing you and make their backlog bigger.

    B. Elgin

  • Caveat: I work for IBM, but I am not in the Software Division so I don't know any internal strategies.

    From what I can tell, Linux is a complement, refinement, and replacement from different perspectives. Your comments on both the complement and refinement categories are pretty close to my own deductions. The replacement category applies, but not in the way you guessed.

    The big problem with Java right now, is that half the people who would be working on it are in the Java standards battle trying to nail down an industry standard and wrest absolute power from Sun. Once a standard is laid down, the other half can get back to working full steam on Java. In the interim, those engineers and programmers need a different focus to keep busy. Linux is the current focus of all the concerted energy, because it is the best broad spectrum redefinement for all of these people to be working on. Once the Java standards are in place, work on Linux will slow down a bit as some of those people are assigned to or back to Java.

    B. Elgin

  • I don't see how IBM can say that they're a rival to Microsoft since they basically let OS/2 hang for such a long time.

    IBM is a rival to Microsoft because it has the resources (hardware manufacturing and development, massive internal software development capabilities, etc.) and the motivation (no explanation needed) to both push its own hardware and to push linux (or any other OS) on that hardware. IBM's business strategy of late looks a lot like this - make your competitors work for you. IBM wants to make a profit from Win2k. IBM can make more profit and better mindshare from linux. (They can also offer better systems that way, and that's good for the reputation.) They not only have their big in-house development staff to work with, they have the entire linux community too.

    Linux is what IBM was looking for when they were trying to sell OS2, from a business standpoint. It's arguable that what killed OS2 was its compatibility with Windows - why develop ports for OS2 when you can just write the code once and have it run both ways? Lotus developed for OS2. Anyone else? Many, many people are developing for Linux... (That, and a statistically respectable number of people within IBM use linux as their primary OS - I saw a pie chart a couple months ago.)

    Their real rivals are the Dells and the Gateways.

    Not really - IBM just figured out that it is SO big, and has so much R&D, entrenched market share, etc., etc., that the best bet is to do what no one else really can: attack the entire market, broadside. Software, hardware, and above all, services - all on as many fronts as possible. Who can keep up with that? They can influence the hardware and software markets by porting to Linux. They can influence Linux development by the same token, and popularize it on their hardware by supporting it and using it within their "solutions."

    IBM is the only Huge player that can play all these games at once, and it's a miracle for their bottom line that they've figured it out. It's a little frightening, actually. Whether this will be Good for Open Source tm remains to be seen.


    Disclaimer- I work at IBM. Nothing I say is at all official or quoteable, probably has nothing to do with company position, or is even remotely related to what I do. I'm a temp. Whee.

  • IBM has had a terrible decade on the desktop. They lost control of the PC business, failed with OS/2, discovered that Java still isn't ready for prime time, and had a disasterous fling with Apple (IBM was going to make Mac-compatibles, remember?). Only their mainframe business saved them. Jumping on the Linux bandwagon is consistent with their non-strategy.

    But it's good to have a real company behind Linux. The "Linux companies" may not have much time left. VA Linux [stockmaster.com] continues its screaming dive with no sign of a pullout (it's at 87 right now, down from over 100 last week), and Red Hat [stockmaster.com] doesn't look all that great either. Red Hat's latest partner: StupidPC. [stockmaster.com] (Really)

  • I dunno. That's pretty harsh. Most of the MWave group didn't document anything is a correct statement to a degree. Contractually Roland was supposed to, they partnered in the effort of MWave. Roland icidentally is where the core of the MWave team ended up at.

  • I like the remark

    If you cannot say it in 10 pages, you are not focused on the right thing
    in reference to the old 100 page corporate assessments of a decade ago. Somehow, the idea of trimming corporate fat keenly aligns with the linux idea, too. The 10 page versus 100 page assessment reminds me of streamlining the OS so that workstations-to-servers-to-mainframes use the same, efficient one.
  • IBM is a rival to Microsoft because it has the resources (hardware manufacturing and development, massive internal software development capabilities, etc.) and the motivation (no explanation needed) to both push its own hardware and to push linux (or any other OS) on that hardware.

    Hmmmm... &nbsp It might be in IBM's best interest to be software-vendor neutral to get a bigger market share. &nbsp But I still don't see how, what is basically a hardware company, can compete with someone who has focussed solely (at least in recent times) on software. &nbsp Granted, in recent years IBM has become "lean and mean and focussed" towards bringing about a revival of themselves, but still...

    IBM wants to make a profit from Win2k.

    And I'll guarantee that Mr. William H. Gates III will not allow that to happen! &nbsp Not with the Win2K licensing fees that exist right now.

    IBM just figured out that it is SO big, and has so much R&D, entrenched market share, etc., etc., that the best bet is to do what no one else really can: attack the entire market, broadside.

    Uh... what "entrenched market share"? &nbsp Sure there's still some legacy mainframes out there but their desktop market share pretty much died out when the clones appeared. &nbsp And attacking the entire market broadside is a pretty lofty dream, IMHO. &nbsp We have watched Microsoft try to do that - be everything for everyone and you become a master at nothing! &nbsp ;-)

    IBM is the only Huge player that can play all these games at once, and it's a miracle for their bottom line that they've figured it out. It's a little frightening, actually. Whether this will be Good for Open Sourcetm remains to be seen.

    I hate to say that IBM is also known for its expensive hardware too.. &nbsp Which sent folks flocking to the Dells and Compaqs and Gateways (who inturn, as clones, are becoming costlier themselves). &nbsp Seems folks (at least hobbists) are finally gravitating towards the cheap "Net PC" type device for tinkering, like the "i-opener". &nbsp Perhaps if IBM can create something like that with Linux pre-loaded, THEN they'd get a market. &nbsp Otherwise, they price themselves out of the market! &nbsp (this spoken from one who thinks the Thinkpad is cool and would love to have one if it only cost a little less). &nbsp ;-)

  • If you want some entrenched market share, look into IBM's RS/6000 Line and AIX. While some RS/6000 stuff may be considered legacy, go check out an S-80 or an SP, and lots of little companies use 43P-140 as servers for Point of Sale terminals.

    I guess I have a different idea of what the relative "quantity" of "entrenched" is, ie., I'm looking at the traditional desktop and low to mid-tier server market - and this far outpaces the point of sale terminal market (and IBM sure ain't there to any great degree in the peecee/server arena). &nbsp If anything, Compaq is "entrenched", with servers and desktops alike - plus their purchase of DEC gave them even more, ie., all the legacy DEC terminals, VAX, and alpha boxes.

    However... &nbsp if IBM looks at what companies like the Burlington Coat Factory has done, using Linux for point of sale, they could focus on selling point of sale devices (terminals) running Linux and make a killing. &nbsp To try to do too broad a market would be difficult. &nbsp Niche may be better for them right now as they reintroduce themselves back into the marketplace as a "player". &nbsp See... so much of their stuff has let us down in the immediate past - the microchannel architecture, OS/1, OS/2, blah (although the PS/2 technology was a hit). &nbsp And again, cost is a big factor. &nbsp They're probably betting on being able to lower the cost of a solution by eliminating the OS licensing fees (which makes sense and which is what Sun should be trying to do as well, IMHO). &nbsp However IBM has some work to do (marketing wise) to get back into the good graces... &nbsp And besides, they still make electric typewriters? (diversity = good)

    ;-)


  • -------NOTE: NOT FLAMEBAIT!!!!!! ;-)------------

    First - I *definitely* don't mean to attack those who work for IBM (and there's a few out there who have posted now) - that's your job and you know better about your company than I... so take no personal offense! &nbsp ;-)

    They then turn around and charge $X an hour per person on a team sent to go to another company to make Win2K work. Every time it breaks itself, that team or some part of it goes back and makes more money. Trust me, it works.

    Again, take no personal offense at this but as someone who might work for a company that would be a customer of yours (or may purchase from your re-seller), would not I finally get wise to this practice? &nbsp That is, pouring money into a black hole? &nbsp Sure it might have worked for a couple of years but if I, Small to Medium-sized Business(tm) takes a look at my bottom line and finds that IT costs are cutting into it (and I have shareholders to answer to), what do you think I might do? &nbsp Some "smart" IT managers, when their budget suddenly gets cut, might opt for the "cheaper" solution - which wouldn't be your product, IMHO. &nbsp With Linux, maybe it would be competitive, but with Win2K it's not. &nbsp Everytime Win2K breaks, my TCO goes up and up and up and *I* have to explain to the CEO why I "exaggerated" (lied) about the combination IBM/Win2K having a so-called lower TCO (even though it's not IBM's fault) then X/Y brand. &nbsp THIS is the reality that IBM (and any other solutions provider) must deal with. &nbsp The days of sinking money into information technology *ARE OVER*. (trust me - my own place of employment is going through this now).

    I (Small to Medium-sized Business(tm)) need a cheaper way to get the tech that I need. &nbsp Work me a deal!

    Are you game? (this is all hypothetical, by the way - and this is what IBM needs to factor into any strategy that they might come up with)

  • Global Services isn't paid to push IBM products, they are paid to give the customer what the customer asks for. Sometimes you get what you ask for if you already "know" what is best for you. If you ask for advice, they will plug IBM, of course, but let you do your own research and help you whatever you decide. Their goal is to make money by helping you and making you want to call them back the next time you need help.

    And here is where the IT department needs to really do some research and not just follow the Pied Piper of Redmond. &nbsp What often happens is laziness, relying on you (the provider) to make the decision, and then when things go sour, they drop you. &nbsp I guess that's the risk you take for being a provider... ;-). &nbsp I could never do it and respect the fact that you can! &nbsp In fact, I kinda feel sorry for you 'cause I know your job must be tough - dealing with clients who don't have a clue (and you have to pull teeth to figure out exactly what they want), but either way, you'd still make $$$ off 'em.

    If your unit can push OSS as a viable solution, and not just Linux by the way - the (free as in beer) *BSDs are currently the "backbone" of the internet and e-commerce, then maybe there is hope for "World Domination" (for OSS) after all. &nbsp ;-)

  • By PoS, I assume you mean a thin client running Linux, like this?

    Wow... &nbsp That's a nice looking unit. &nbsp Grovel grovel... I want one.

    But I know I probably couldn't afford it... &nbsp ;-)

    You know, the whole thin client/Net PC thing may really take off when/if flat screen monitors (like the IBM model in your link) come down in price. &nbsp That's why folks /.ed that website of the guy who hacked the $99 ($299 in some locations) flat screen i-opener.

  • .... a quote from the article that basically summarizes why IBM is suddenly doing this (I won't complain).

    It's a shame though, that IBM has basically abandoned it's OS/2 Warp product (which I used at work a few years back rather than NT 3.51 workstation), after previously abandoning OS/1 (which looked pretty cool back when it first released).

    Sun's whole take on this is interesting too but bet you mil that they'll follow along in IBM's footsteps... &nbsp I mean, whaddya have? &nbsp A "free" (as in beer) OS (so you don't have to pay to write and support your own OS or pay to license someone else's) and you make your money off of your hardware! &nbsp This doesn't mean that they'll necessarily get rid of their Unixes, but for the low and mid-tier server market, it's a sure bet.

    At this point, I don't see how IBM can say that they're a rival to Microsoft since they basically let OS/2 hang for such a long time. &nbsp Their real rivals are the Dells and the Gateways.

  • Why is it shame that IBM has abandoned OS/2 Warp? I'd rather see IBM starting to support (and maybe develop) Linux than to try to do anything to/with dying/dead operating system (OS/2).

    You're sortof preaching to the choir really... &nbsp ;-) (I have 4 Linux boxen at home). &nbsp I'm just lamenting about that time, just before Windows 95 released, when IBM could have "seized the moment" with what is clearly a more stable and functional OS. &nbsp They didn't do it and now we have the result, a literal bugfest that many of us are forced to work with and support (forced in that where we work made MS the vendor of choice).

    I do cheer IBM's efforts at supporting Linux and am actually surprised that they continue to aggressively move in that direction. &nbsp I say "suprised" in that when I first heard of this maybe a few months ago, I said "yeah right"... lip service. &nbsp All of the other hw manufacturers like Compaq and recently Dell, HP, etc. are "embracing" Linux too and are starting to ship pre-installed versions on their stuff. &nbsp But then recently, it has been sounding like Big Blue plans to really go whole hog on it, so things should get pretty interesting (eg., running it on a mainframe comes to mind, which I believe someone did accomplish). &nbsp Only problem is that nowadays, how many people are really buying IBM hardware anymore?

    Oh well... only time will tell.

  • Makes hardware sense (Score:3)

    by Proteus ( 1926 ) on Monday March 20, 2000 @07:58AM (#1190174) Homepage Journal
    IBM may have quite a lot of very nice software, but thier big business is in the hardware. After all, they have to compete with the likes of Sun and Microsoft, just like the article says.

    This plays into a perfect little niche with Linux. Linux is on the upswing: more and more PHB's and admins alike are finding useful places for Linux, and as the corporate networks grow and spill over onto the Internet this trend will continue.

    IBM has seen that supporting an OS on the upswing gets them more media and a speedy gain in hardware sales. They also realize that, as one of the more expensive hardware vendors, they can increase the value (real and percieved) of, say, a server by reducing the initial OS cost to zero (or close to it).

    Do the math: if Compaq's hardware for a similar spec is $4000, and IBM's is $4600, IBM can point out that by offering pre-installed Linux at no additional charge, there is no need for the $2000 extra for NT server and approprate CAL's. Whammo. Suddenly, hardware that was more expensive looks cheaper.

    Let's just hope they stick to Linux, and don't jump on the next wave of hype, abandoning thier Linux clients...

    --
    : remove whitespace to e-mail me

  • Essential strategic component not mentioned (Score:3)

    by mikemcc ( 4795 ) on Monday March 20, 2000 @08:12AM (#1190175)
    While I enjoyed the article, I found it interesting that it did not touch on another component of IBM's long term strategy - Java.

    Here's a question to the Slashdot readership:
    Does IBM's Linux strategy represent a compliment to its Java strategy, a refinement, or a replacement? One could make a case for either.

    Compliment:
    IBM is aggressively and successfully pursuing Java application development across its product lines, and this standardization of languages, libraries, and tools actually makes it easier for the company to adopt Linux, where it might not have been a practical option if IBM had not already adopted Java.

    Refinement:
    IBM is having problems deploying Java applications across all of its product lines, so spreading Linux across all the hardware reduces the overhead and complexity of the Java efforts.

    Replacement:
    IBM has decided that Java is not going to live up to its potential as a feature-rich lowest common denominator development environment. Linux, with less onerous licensing terms permitting more technical and creative freedom, is to take the place of Java in IBM's strategy - Linux will be the lowest common denominator, rather than Java.

    Comments, suggestions, refutations?

  • IBM developerWorks (Score:3)

    by tdrury ( 49462 ) on Monday March 20, 2000 @07:36AM (#1190176) Homepage
    One only needs to visit IBM's developerWorks [ibm.com] occassionally to see their interest in Linux, Java, XML, etc. Their Linux page is here [ibm.com].

    -tim

  • It costs money (Score:3)

    by Greyfox ( 87712 ) on Monday March 20, 2000 @10:31AM (#1190177) Homepage Journal
    You're thinking the price of the OS, right?

    Truth is any OS costs the company that maintains it money. It costs money to support and it costs money to maintain. A lot of money.

    So suddenly an operating system appears out of nowhere that runs on the hardware and doesn't cost the company anything to maintain or support. Damn that's a pretty nice deal. And it runs on ALL the hardware the company has. That's a REALLY nice deal. And it's an OS that a lot of people are familar with. Someone high up most have sold their soul for a deal that good.

  • You really want to know why? (Score:3)

    by Greyfox ( 87712 ) on Monday March 20, 2000 @08:59AM (#1190178) Homepage Journal
    It's becauase no one around here knows anything about it anymore. The MWave group apparently didn't document or spec out anything they did and they're all gone now. To document or release drivers for that thing, we'd have to reverse engineer it almost as much as the open source community would. And our marketing guys have come up with the idea of trying to convince everyone that Mwave was just a mass hallucination anyway (MCI went over to Compaq hardware largely because IBM hardware, specifically MWave, never worked worth a damn.)

  • Tech Generation Gap (Score:3)

    by Scooter[AMMO] ( 98851 ) on Monday March 20, 2000 @07:58AM (#1190179)
    A lot of people are going to say "We don't want corporations polluting Linux".

    A few more are going to say "Most corporations publically support Linux for the lip service and popularity factor".

    And some more will say "Most Linux-friendly corporations haven't delivered on promises".

    IBM is a good example of a rather old-school tech company that sees promise in the direction of the youngster of Linux, and wants to help where it can.

    But take note, even heavyweights like IBM can't make the scene change overnight, and we should make sure that they know the community support their inititives, and that we are patient.

    The intermingling of IBM in the open source/Linux movement is, in my opinion, proof that Linux isn't a fad, and has real potential. At least to a number of PHB's that sometimes lack an open mind. The direction of the entire company has changed from a PC maker, to mostly that of a consulting firm. Isn't it flattering that Linux plays a big part in that $80B/year puzzle?

    ---------

  • Industrial Strength (Score:3)

    by 348 ( 124012 ) on Monday March 20, 2000 @07:43AM (#1190180) Homepage
    They get it. Nice to see. As big blue ports to Linux, they will get a strong foothold in the markets they used to dominate in the 70's. A little forethought and a pirate flag mentality have begun to change the company. It's good to see that they view M$ and Sun as the targets to take marketshare away from and not, as in the old days a strategic partner in which they could join forces and split the difference. This new competition will be good for the consumer in the long run, more compatible systems, more choice and lower costs. I do hope they give the effort the right long term focus and do a better job overall than they did with WARP. This was left to a lesser team of engineers and poor PM that eventually killed it's mainstream appeal.

    IBM's betting the farm on the future of Linux and Open Source ideals taking off. Big Risk. Linux as fully mainstream does have a long way to go, but with big guns like IBM making so much noise, it allows Linux and similar efforts to ride on the PR coattails. They're even porting things in house and ditching AIX, It's good to see real commitment and not just a fly by token "Yeah we support Linux also". I beleive they really get it and see the industial strength value.

Slashdot Top Deals

For God's sake, stop researching for a while and begin to think!

Close