Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Linux Business IBM

IBM Turns to Open Source Development 142

Posted by Zonk from the turning-up-in-lots-of-places dept.
mmmbop writes "'Is open source changing the way that software is made? It is at IBM. BetaNews sat down with Doug Heintzman, IBM Software Group's VP of Strategy and Technology, to discuss the adoption of a hybrid development model called Community Source that combines the best elements of the open source model with decades of IBM programming practice - avoiding a top down approach that IBM says could make Microsoft's Longhorn obsolete upon arrival.' A long read, but well worth it."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

IBM Turns to Open Source Development More

IBM Turns to Open Source Development

Comments Filter:

  • Caveat Emptor (Score:2, Insightful)

    by katana ( 122232 )
    Never trust someone who says that Lotus Notes is "highly functional."
    • Lotus Notes is highly functional... provided you buy the $800,000 server cluster and hire the nine admins to maintain it and the twenty-six developers to shape it.

      • Re:Caveat Emptor (Score:5, Informative)

        by bdeclerc ( 129522 ) on Tuesday June 14, 2005 @05:48PM (#12818574) Homepage
        Sorry, got a system with 3500 users on 14 x86-servers (no clusters) geographically spread out, with about 200 *different* applications outside e-mail.

        One main administrator, a few local part-time ones who only do things like create new users.

        One developer.

        Works like a charm. For sure, the Notes UI is Idiosyncratic at best, extremely frustrating at its worst, but for the kind of things it does well, nothing comes close!
        • I seem to have forgotten to add "sense of humor" to the list of things to have for a large-scale Notes deployment. :)

  • IBM: good for open source (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Sheetrock ( 152993 ) on Tuesday June 14, 2005 @05:41PM (#12818512) Homepage Journal
    I've worked with IBM products for a long time, and I think of all the computer companies their adoption of open source techniques for software development surprises me least.

    Traditionally IBM's methodologies have been very close to (and predate) that of open source, which derived much of its culture and programming mindset from that of IBM or Bell Labs. Their documentation as compared to other hardware/software developers has always encouraged the user to learn about and extend the environment in which they work rather than supporting only a superficial "click here, then there" mentality.

    IBM has always been good for open source. It makes sense that open source can be good for IBM as well.

    • Their documentation as compared to other hardware/software developers has always encouraged the user to learn about and extend the environment in which they work rather than supporting only a superficial "click here, then there" mentality.
      Digital Equipment's documentation for the OpenVMS system was also very good. For each major subject they had both a reference manual that listed things in alphabetical order, and a tutorial that gave you an introduction and explained the underlying concepts.

      And there was lots of it: the documentation for OpenVMS was at least 10 or 15 feet in the bookshelf. Absolutely great.

      It is mentioned in the article that IBM hopes that they will be able to make a contribution back by introducing some of their techniques and practices into the Open Source world. If there is one area where I really hope they succeed, it is if they were to inspire people to spend more time on documentation.

      After all, what good is a program that does exactly what you want, if you can't find out that it exists and how it works by surfing the net? If I have to download and unpack something just to see if there happens to be some more or less cryptic files that I can read to see if it was worth downloading and unpacking, the chances are very slim that I'm gonna bother. And I think many people are like me in this respect.

    • 15-20 years ago, I was a systems programmer on VM/SP . I always remember how shocked I was that all the OS source code was shipped with the installation. We used that code quite a bit for reference and sometimes even changed it. I guess it wasn't really open but it sure was handy to have around.
  • 'Community source' sounds like another excuse to act like you are releasing free software, then hold back on how you can modify or redistribute it. Didn't Microsoft pull the same FUD with their 'shared source' thing?
    • and it only makes me uneasy to see that the /. crowd didn't give this much of a thought, given the number of replies. Just because IBM is profiting with Linux, doesn't mean they are any way better than M$...

  • Seriously buzzword compliant (Score:3, Insightful)

    by sjbe ( 173966 ) on Tuesday June 14, 2005 @05:44PM (#12818546)
    I couldn't bear to read the whole thing. Example: ...Certainly a lot of our componentization efforts, and subsequently the tooling to support those componentization efforts, are focused on the core enabling.

    I stopped reading after that. Too much consultant speak even if the content is good. And I've been a consultant for years...
    • Heh. Isn't IBM just practicing to become a fully consultant-based company there? That seems to be their plan:
      1. make the best software in the world using whatever tools are at hand
      2. open source it, (automatic, considering how 1 would have to be done)
      3. and support it. (of course, this is where 'profit' would normally go, but yeeah.)

      Looks like a better plan to me than other stuff.

      Just thought I'd summarize, 'cause you didn't read the whole article. :P

      • Re:Seriously buzzword compliant (Score:4, Interesting)

        by timothy_m_smith ( 222047 ) on Tuesday June 14, 2005 @07:02PM (#12819123)
        IBM's approach is to sell you the whole thing: servers, software, and services. They'll give you a good price on one to make a profit on the others. Open Source might be a piece of the software, but rarely is it the whole thing. WebSphere, Notes/Domino, DB2 and MQSeries all generate good money for IBM. Don't confuse IBM w/Red Hat or a services-only company b/c they're not.

        When companies start an outsourcing deal w/IBM, IBM comes in and replaces all the hardware, and migrates as much of the software to their stuff that they can.
      • 1. make the best software in the world using whatever tools are at hand
        2. open source it, (automatic, considering how 1 would have to be done)
        3. and support it. (of course, this is where 'profit' would normally go, but yeeah.)
        4. Profit !!!

    • Oh my God. (Score:3, Insightful)

      by mcc ( 14761 )
      Core Enabling!

      Core Enabling!

      That's absolutely beautiful! The only problem is I can't decide whether it ought to be the name of a marketing buzzword from a 10-year-old video game console, or the name of a band.

      AND NOW LADIES AND GENTLEMEN THE MOMENT YOU'VE BEEN WAITING FOR...
      CORE ENABLING.
      [epic guitar solo]
  • a top down approach that IBM says could make Microsoft's Longhorn obsolete upon arrival.

    I thought it was Microsoft's job to ensure obsolescence upon delivery.

  • From what I see... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by guardiangod ( 880192 )
    Basically IBM has a big project that needs to be done.
    They break it down into components, and delegate these components into their labs around the world.
    Now here is the smart part- Instead of hiring REAL (as in doing it for a living) programmers in their centres to do program, they get OS community to do them instead.

    After a year, IBM collects all the parts together, assemble them, trim and fit them until they work right.


    PROFIT!!!


    Not much cost- they are genius.
    • They plan on employing all those people in all those labs. They just figure that there will be massive inefficiency (and they're probably right, seeing as they saw the problem years back, apparently) if they don't manage it in a way that mimics open source. It's not a complete open sourcing of all IBM's applications he mentions. In fact, he seems to refer to it in terms of open-sourcing the codebase within the company, rather than open-sourcing to everyone. I have read somewhere around here that the same kind of thing goes on at Google.
      • What a groundbreaking article then. I'd like to to let every one know that I'm donating all my money...

        to myself!

        Thanks for the marketting tip IBM :)

      • In fact, he seems to refer to it in terms of open-sourcing the codebase within the company, rather than open-sourcing to everyone. I have read somewhere around here that the same kind of thing goes on at Google.

        My first job out of college was at a small unix computer manufacturer and all of their source code - os, tools and apps - were easily accessible to anyone in the company with a workstation.

        Then I went to work for HP and could not believe that the support guys had zero access to the source code - o

    • Now here is the smart part- Instead of hiring REAL (as in doing it for a living) programmers in their centres to do program, they get OS community to do them instead.

      No. IBM is not releasing its code for programmers around the world to hack on. All of the programmers working on this code are employees of IBM software development labs. The purpose is to avoid reinvention and to allows programmers in different projects to improve upon one anothers' ideas.

      AFAICT there are no plans to make this codeba

    • IBM does like open source in a number of places, but they don't seem to be shy about contributing themselves or hiring people who are already working on stuff they want. IBM may see open source as a way to share costs of development, but I suspect that it is more marketing position and increasing efficiency by avoiding internal politics that drives IBM to open source. IBM tries to be a good community player, and seems to be succeeding in most cases.
    • Now here is the smart part- Instead of hiring REAL (as in doing it for a living) programmers in their centres to do program, they get OS community to do them instead.

      After a year, IBM collects all the parts together, assemble them, trim and fit them until they work right.

      Do you really believe that "opensourcing" things makes it magically grow? Check openoffice, basically only paid people touchs it. IBM doesnt needs a "community" to do the job, they have enought money and they can put the prices high e
    • I think we've finally found #2...

      1. Adopt OSS as your platform
      2. Get geeks around the world to write your software for you for free
      3. Profit!!!

  • They could show their true dedication ... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by CyricZ ( 887944 ) on Tuesday June 14, 2005 @05:47PM (#12818568)
    They could show their true dedication to open source by releasing the code behind OS/2 and AiX. While it will of course take time, effort and money on the part of both developers and lawyers, it would be an excellent show of good-faith towards the open source community. After all, if Sun can do it with Solaris, then IBM can surely do it with AiX and OS/2.
    • oh, you mean like how they're releasing AFS next year?

      Yeah, commercial companies have to go full-on to prove they're OSS friendly...none of this half-ass crap! I can't stand companies that only give a few hundred thousand in donations to charities, instead of giving 100% of their net profits. Those bastards!
      • "Yeah, commercial companies have to go full-on to prove they're OSS friendly...none of this half-ass crap!"

        I hope you're aware that AiX and OS/2 are a very small portion of IBM's entire software product line. Indeed, they would be the most wise products to open source. They would offer users the ability to test and gain experience using such systems. If they experiences are good, then perhaps such people would further recommend the use of such systems in enterprise settings. This in turn may garner suppor
        • Aix has by far the most solid and guaranteed-to-work patching system among any OS in the market today. Among other aspects like san, device drivers, reliability... I am making my judgement after hitting deep with almost every flavor of commercial unix with the exception of SCO.

          I am still highly confused as to why IBM is pushing linux so much harder than Aix. I would however favor the merging of Aix and Linux into a single OS supported by IBM. What they are doing now makes no sense.

        • OS/2 and AIX might only be a small portion of IBM's product line, but they're 100% of IBM's OS product line.

          reputation gain...amoung people who are Free Software Advocates?

          Don't get me wrong, I'm a very dedicated advocate myself...but I don't ask commercial companies to do things for me. I ask myself to.

          "Big picture" be damned - IBM isn't the government, and in our capitalistic society, they can't be concerned with the Greater Good as their primary drive. That they contribute to the Greater Good at al
          • "OS/2 and AIX might only be a small portion of IBM's product line, but they're 100% of IBM's OS product line."

            I hesitate to reply to such an obvious troll. Anyways, I suppose AiX and OS/2 are 100% of IBM's operating systems when you intentionally go out of your way to ignore IBM's other operating systems such as z/OS, PC-DOS, K42, OS/390, z/VM, DOS/VSE, SVS, MVT, and so on.
            • oh yeah, I am the troll..

              z/OS = OS/390 = MVS. Not three seperate items. Also designed for specific hardware, and not all that relevant compared to OS/2 or such.

              PC-DOS is...yeah. Ok. We've gotten past the 80's now, haven't we? Guess not, since you mention MVT, which is from the 60's. You do realize that this is 2005, right?

              K42 is already open source (and is based largely off Linux), so is irrelevant in a discussion about what they should open-source in their commercial product line.

              Not really going
        • uhmm, I think it's called sarcasm ;)
        • btw, what was I misrepresenting (since it was "blatant" and all, should be easy to point out)?

          AFS is indeed whispered to be a primary open-source candidate for next year.
      • Releasing OS/2 on an Open Source license makes good business sense however. There are some real OS/2 fanatics who would love the chance to work on it and that has the potential to improove IBMs software portfolio.
        Lets not kid ourselves here Big Blue are supporting Open Source to make profit. Thats a good thing, it means IBM thinks Open Source works.
    • I doubt the open source community would, in general, particularly care about AIX or OS/2. Sun's released Solaris, and nobody seems to care particularly much aside from people who were already using it. Sun had to add a bunch of new features to Solaris 10 to get people to be at all curious. IBM's been working on new OS features, but they've been contributing them to Linux, not doing much with them in AIX. And OS/2 is almost gone at this point; their OS/2 support is primarily "we'll help you switch to Linux b

      • Re:They could show their true dedication ... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Amiga Trombone ( 592952 ) on Tuesday June 14, 2005 @08:57PM (#12819929)
        IBM's been working on new OS features, but they've been contributing them to Linux, not doing much with them in AIX.

        I'd have to disagree with that. The improvements may not be obvious from a user perspective, but they're certainly there. For example, AIX 5.3 now supports being able to partition a single processor (Power 5 only), has various improvements in the LVM and NIM now supports installs using secure sockets. You now have the ability to force unmounts of wedged NFS filesystems without having to reboot your system. And those are just the few improvement that come to mind off the top of my head.

        I love Linux, don't get me wrong, but for high-end hardware it isn't a contest. I'd take AIX over Linux every time. Once you find your way around it (and I concede that compared to Solaris or Linux or HP-UX, etc., it is a little on the weird side), it's probably the most versatile, stable and easily managed *nix implementation out there.
  • There is considerable merit in open source when you've got many eyeballs you can drive out bugs and security holes and flaws and fix them more efficiently.

    This is an argument commonly used in favour of open source products. It's positive to hear them coming from major commercial companies too now. Open Source has gotten a more "legit" status now that it is clearly demonstrated by IBM and Apple that commercial products can be made or based on OS. Not too long ago, a manager-type friend started inquiring ab

  • Somewhat busted already... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Dink Paisy ( 823325 ) on Tuesday June 14, 2005 @06:06PM (#12818708) Homepage
    From the article: "I think that managed code is a way of referring to a structured component and we've got a number of names for them ourselves."

    Aside from the interviewer not knowing what "managed code" is, I think that sums up a lot of IBM's difficulty. Everyone else does something simple, IBM does something complicated. Later in the article, Heintzman compares the Windows codebase with Lotus Notes. From the leaked source code, though, we know that the Windows codebase is very clean for its size. Complex and messy code affects every large piece of software, but Microsoft seems to have managed at least moderately well, perhaps unlike IBM.

    • Complex and messy code affects every large piece of software, but Microsoft seems to have managed at least moderately well

      What metric are you using for this? Code indentation? Because if you were using my new "the bugs/line of code" ratio ...

  • Semantics don't sound right... (Score:4, Informative)

    by ComputerSlicer23 ( 516509 ) on Tuesday June 14, 2005 @06:08PM (#12818726)
    Okay, this doesn't sound like Open Source. It sounds like they are just realizing what their own employee's knew 30 years ago....

    When I read what he is saying they want to do, it sure sounds a lot like reading Fred Brooke's "Mythical Man Month". They are realizing that writting high quality, re-usable components with good documentation is very expensive. I believe "MMM", discussed this in the very first chapter. There are two orthognal qualities (I believe re-usable, and quality documentation, but it's a really long time since I read the book) that add a factor of 3 in each direction. If you wanted both it would take 9 times as long.

    Stratigically, it makes sense to invest in creating those, if you have features that will be needed in enough different projects and areas. It sounds like they are planning on breaking down internal barriers, and providing highly re-usable, and well documented internally, and then ensuring that people know of it's existance.

    Providing the source is a good idea. Ensuring that the fixes get moved upstream is a good idea. However, this sounds like good Engineering Practices (which I suppose is what a lot of "Open Source" advocates say you get, where as "Free Software" advocates, say it's purely an ethical issue).

    It sure seems like this has little to do with "Open Source", and a lot to do with solid Engineering. It just so happens that Open Source has a lot of solid engineering behind it. It sure looks like a no brainer to re-use source you already have access to. If you are going to re-use it, it should probably be designed for that. If people who didn't write it are going to use it, it should probably be documented fairly well. Some how this seems fairly obvious, as opposed to, "we add features as we need them, to resolve some personal niche", which is the crux of "Open Source" according to CatB.

    Kirby

    • Yup, another thing that sounds like straight from MMM, is the emphasis on components instead of huge monolithic applications. One of Brooks central arguments was that the cost of producing a piece of software increases faster than linearly with size due to communication overhead, with the optimal team size being around 5-10. So instead of creating one huge piece of software, make many smaller components and finally just put them together to create the final app.

  • Yeah Right (Score:4, Insightful)

    by timothy_m_smith ( 222047 ) on Tuesday June 14, 2005 @06:50PM (#12819061)
    Lets see IBM release bits of WebSphere, DB2, MQSeries or Notes to Open Source. IBM likes open source as much as it is detrimental to their competitors, but you'll be unlikely to see them open source their big moneymakers.

    • And what would you expect? (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Err, if they open sourced their big moneymakers, wouldn't they go out of business and then be unable to help us at all because their consultancy business was hurt by the loss of direct revenues from the licensing fees?

      No, I doubt their motives are "pure" in the sense that they're not trying to get ahead of the competition. But so long as our interests are aligned, the fact that they have financial incentive (even in terms of hurting their rivals) is precisely *why* we can trust them to help us--because IB
      • > Err, if they open sourced their big moneymakers, wouldn't they go out of business

        Not necessarily. They are already mostly a support company and the IBM name plus the fact that they developed the software will win them a majority of the contracts, even if they make the software itself free.

        I suspect we will se IBM make more and more of their software free. Just not everything at once.
        • Again, this is not completely true. In their last 10k, here is the breakdown of revenue for 2004:

          Services 48%
          Hardware 32%
          Software 15%

          The rest is financing and investments. Not to mentioned that their profit margins were as follows:

          Services 25%
          Hardware 30%
          Software 87%

          So, that software revenue is very profitable. Don't expect them to give away Notes, DB2, or WebSphere any time soon.
          • As you say, it makes no sense to Open Source the big money makers this product cycle. You can bet however that Big Blue will Open source thier big money spinners as soon as it does make sense (read will make them more money). And market variation means at some point more open source release from IBM are probable.
            • Given that a small % of their business produces the most profit (more than their services business that everyone keeps touting), it will likely be a few product cycles until that happens.
              • Fair point, well made. IBM is shifting towards a more service based model of operation though. That is eaier to compliment with the Open Source develoment model than it is with the proprietary model.
                Like one of the parents said, lets be patient and see how good they make on thier promise.
            • "You can bet however that Big Blue will Open source thier big money spinners as soon as it does make sense (read will make them more money)."

              You can also bet that the day it makes sense to IBM will never come. I'll bet that IBM has plans for proprietary products that they haven't even started working on yet.

              In fact, here is a great question to ask IBM executives. "Will you commit to making all new software products open source by the end of this decade?"

              I'll bet the answer will not be a simple "Yes".
              • IBM are unlikely to have a totally Open Source catalogue. Why would they? But to suggest none of the products previously list will be Open Sourced is one heck of a prediction.
                As soon as someone else Open Sources a similar product to a proprietary product a company owns it is time to consider Open Sourcing it unless you have patents or a monopoly (I doubt IBM are going to go on a patent offensive against F/OS developers). Why, because if you don't you are missing out on developer mind share.
                I will bet IBM h
                • "But to suggest none of the products previously list will be Open Sourced is one heck of a prediction."

                  IBM refuses to open source some products like Visual Test that they no longer sell, so it's one heck of a prediction that any big money maker will be open sourced as long as it's still making money.

                  "Why, because if you don't you are missing out on developer mind share."

                  You're assuming that all developers care about a product being F/OSS. At least today, the vast majority of development is being done on
      • I'm not griping. I'm just pointing out that this article seems to hype IBM's usage of open source, but that they don't open source everything and probably won't until their software is completely commoditized.
  • Without any details, this sounds much more like Microsoft's "Shared Source" than like being something clearly identified as F/OSS.

    I miss so important topics like the used license(s) or which software packages are available.

    If I take in mind, that Sun released OpenSolaris today, this interview sounds to IBM want's to draw attention away from that.

  • Make Longhorn Obsolete? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by EraserMouseMan ( 847479 ) on Tuesday June 14, 2005 @07:08PM (#12819162)
    The only people who will always have cutting edge software are those who are willing to view their software as a utility (pay monthly for it). If software isn't updated on a continual basis it is always obsolete.

    IBM's clients are big businesses (as far as their cash cow consulting services go). All of these businesses pay IBM tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars every month. The average Longhorn user isn't prepared to do that.

    So, IBM claiming that Longhorn will be obsolete as soon as it is released is only pointing out the fact that Longhorn caters to a different market than IBM's products do. Mac's next OS will be obsolete as soon as it is put out as well as about 99.999% of all other software.

    Just putting it in perspective. It's not an open source thing, it's just the way the software market works.
    • Sorry, but just because you aren't using the latest and greatest doesn't mean that it is obsolete. My father still uses MS Office 97 for example, and it has all the features he needs. He decided to not use later versions of MS Office even when they were available for free, because the old one does its job. Software or any tool only becomes obsolete when the later version does the job better. In the case of Word, thats not happened since 97, given the features that my father needs.
    • I think what he means by making longhorn obolete is to make it obsolete as a business desktop. I see IBM's strategy is to make Workplace2 and its Rich Client Platform (the RCP is based on Eclispse and is opens sourced) the basis of the corporate desktop. Being Java it is platform independant.

      Corporations don't need to upgrade to Longhorn as the RCP runs on existing Win XP/2000, Linux and Macs. Plugins are delivered from central servers to give the functions that are needed on a desktop "on demand" as I

    • I never said that Longhorn will be obsolete. I simply used Longhorn and its delays and feature degradation as an example of the complex engineering problem that software vendors face these days. We saw this coming awhile ago and decided to start moving in a different direction as a means to mitigate this increasing complexity. The obsolescence comment is an editorialization by the interviewer not IBM's opinion.

  • Wait. What? (Score:1, Redundant)

    by superdan2k ( 135614 )
    ...approach that IBM says could make Microsoft's Longhorn obsolete upon arrival...

    You mean it's not already?
  • What software product does IBM make that is a market leader? Most of their software isn't even ranked #2.

    So it makes sense for IBM try other approaches to improve their market position. It would be a mistake for the market leaders to drop their more effective processes and adopt IBM's revised techniques until IBM can prove their value in the market.
    • A few years ago, they purchased Rational Software Corporation, which was a market leader in development process software (Purify, Quantify, Rational Rose, Apex). They also make the best ada compiler ever. Rational was one of the best software companies you've never heard of. And IBM still sells their products and employs most of what was the company.
      • I'm well aware of IBM's purchase of Rational since it resulted in the abandonment of Rational Visual Test customers (including myself and my clients). But buying software companies is not an indication that you know how to develop software. Quite the opposite I would argue.
  • This list is not complete (missing are larger things like Eclipse [eclipse.org] and Apache Derby [apache.org]) but it clearly includes many projects that helps competitors and that IBM formerly sold. This was obtained directly from IBM's web site [ibm.com]:

    4758 Secure Coprocessor Driver for Linux
    This project is a Linux device driver for the IBM 4758 PCI Cryptographic Coprocessor, which is a tamper-sensing and responding, programmable PCI card. It provides a highly secure subsystem in which data processing and cryptography can be performed.

    ATM on Linux
    ATM support for Linux is currently in pre-alpha stage. There is an experimental release, which supports raw ATM connections (PVCs and SVCs), IP over ATM, LAN emulation, MPOA, Arequipa, and some other goodies.

    Abstract Machine Test Utility (AMTU) for Linux
    Abstract Machine Test Utility (AMTU) is an administrative utility that checks whether the underlying protection mechanism of the hardware is being enforced. This is a requirement of the Controlled Access Protection Profile (CAPP) FTP_AMT.1.

    Ananas Project: Summary
    This is the source for Working XML, a column on developerWorks with companion project code that demonstrates the evolution of full-fledged XML applications. This is distributed under the artistic license.

    Apache HTTP Server
    The Apache project develops and maintains an open-source HTTP server for various modern desktop and server operating systems.

    BlueHoc simulator
    BlueHoc is a tool that predicts the performance of Bluetooth wireless hardware technologies. BlueHoc simulates the baseband and link layers of the Bluetooth specification.

    COIN (Common Optimization INterface)
    Developers can use Common Optimization INterface (COIN) to build optimization solutions. IBM mathematical optimization researchers opened the code they use in finding the optimal allocation of limited resources. The code has many applications in a variety of industries.

    Channel Bonding
    The Channel Bonding project works on methods to join multiple networks on Linux into a single logical network with higher bandwidth. The project team works with the Beowulf Ethernet Channel Bonding project, where bonding work began.

    Consensus prototype
    Consensus is a joint European project carried out by six companies. The project is partially funded by the European Commission. The project goal is to provide technology to support single-authoring for mobile devices. developerWorks hosts the open source implementation developed by the Consortium. Detailed information about the project is at the Consensus Project home page (http://www.consensus-online.org./ [www.consensus-online.org]

    Content Query System (CQS) Project: Summary
    Content Query System (CQS). CQS is a distributed peer-to-peer query system for the purpose of discovering content or data. XML messages are passed between systems and query "engines" are used to access the data that is being made available on the system.

    Crypto Accelerator Driver
    Device Driver Support for the IBM eServer Cryptographic Accelerator.

    Crypto Interface Library
    Generalized Interface library for the IBM eServer Cryptographic Accelerator Device Driver. Note, this is a low level api for the Specified adapter, it is not intended to be an interface which is written to by applications. Applications should use the openCryptoki PKCS#11 api for interfacing to the token.

    Dynamic Probe Class Library (DPCL)
    DPCL is an object-based C++ class library that allows tool developers and sophisticated tool users to build parallel and serial tools using a technology called dynamic instrumentation.

    Embedded IBM PowerPC 4xx Linux Support
    This project contains packages which enable add


  • I dunno why, but IBM has ALWAYS been a company that I didn't see as a monopoly, or threat to culture, like m$.

    Remember they wouldn't crack or cowtale to gates on OS/2 (thank God!). Even though everyone suffered because of m$ since, I respect Big Blue for 'doing-the-right-thing' in not being part of the crimes of m$.

    IBM along with Apple and the Lotus Corporation (remember 123?! :) actaully preddy much single handley got the word out about how wonderful computers would be in everyones hands.

    It is therefo

  • I guess IBM hopes that everybody would just forget when they were hated like Microsoft back in the early 80s and before.

    But this is great for IBM...free labor always is. I guess there is a new breed of programmer that doesn't value their work anymore.

    Not only that, but they just help out MegaloCorp in their new "services" business model.

    I guess the days of the independent developer is all but gone. You might as well get a day job at McDonalds and code for IBM, RedHat, Sun and others for free when you
  • IBM has already proven that corporate financial amd intellectual muscle is for naught if the premise ultimately being worked is bad, so Linux and other OSS boosters should not think IBM's support is any kind of vindication. They should be very afraid.

    Why don't the OSS throngs comprehend that the same baseline common end-user base that has been known to disconnect LAN cables by RIPPING them out of the socket, shoving coffee cups into CD trays, call their company help desk to install codecs to watch porn o
  • they HAVE been very succsesful with Eclipse.

    perhaps my random speculation in openSolaris article is true. This, i believe, is another sign pointing towards the apperance of openO/S2 (or perhaps commO/S2).
  • This Heintzman character sounds like he just climbed out of a Dilbert cartoon. ....Really, I always thought it was all a joke; I truly thought that NO-ONE would actually USE such moronic gabble-speak. Gad; this is depressing....
  • "
    Now that being said, there is a second part of this, and this is really borrowing from the culture of the open source community. There is a very important role in a software company like IBM for top down managed code architecture and all that kind of good stuff. But there's also a tremendous amount of potential innovation that is locked up in the heads of the front line programmers and we try to liberate that creativity and the innovative potential of all of those people. "

    Well Mr. Heintzmann gets some

Slashdot Top Deals

This is now. Later is later.

Close