Slashdot Mirror
NYTimes on IBM and Linux
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.
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
Bad Mojo
"If you can't win by reason, go for volume." -- Calvin
--Attack Mode On--
- "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.
- "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.
- "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).
- "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--Once that battle is won, it is only a matter of time before the consumer apps follow. (See my first point as to why.)
"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.
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
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!
My office has been taken over by iPod people.
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
Pain is the gift of the gods, and I'm the one they chose as their messanger...
By PoS, I assume you mean a thin client running Linux, like this?
--sugarman--
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?
"You can never have too many elephants on your team."
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.
Hates people who have stupid little sigs
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.
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:
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 net will not be what we demand, but what we make it. Build it well.
Idea Futures Exchange is one good place.
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.
Seastead this.
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.
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.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
We'd have to get them back AND make money doing it!
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
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
B. Elgin
"Read at your own risk; feel free to ignore."
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
B. Elgin
"Read at your own risk; feel free to ignore."
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
B. Elgin
"Read at your own risk; feel free to ignore."
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.
[|]
But it's good to have a real company behind Linux. The "Linux companies" may not have much time left. VA Linux 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 doesn't look all that great either. Red Hat's latest partner: StupidPC. (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.
More race stuff in one place,
than any one place on the net.
I like the remark
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...   It might be in IBM's best interest to be software-vendor neutral to get a bigger market share.   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.   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!   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"?   Sure there's still some legacy mainframes out there but their desktop market share pretty much died out when the clones appeared.   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 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..   Which sent folks flocking to the Dells and Compaqs and Gateways (who inturn, as clones, are becoming costlier themselves).   Seems folks (at least hobbists) are finally gravitating towards the cheap "Net PC" type device for tinkering, like the "i-opener".   Perhaps if IBM can create something like that with Linux pre-loaded, THEN they'd get a market.   Otherwise, they price themselves out of the market!   (this spoken from one who thinks the Thinkpad is cool and would love to have one if it only cost a little less).  
-- Win2k: "It's not so much that it's only 65,000 bugs, it's just that they stopped at 65,535 to prevent an overflow."
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).   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...   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.   To try to do too broad a market would be difficult.   Niche may be better for them right now as they reintroduce themselves back into the marketplace as a "player".   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).   And again, cost is a big factor.   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).   However IBM has some work to do (marketing wise) to get back into the good graces...   And besides, they still make electric typewriters? (diversity = good)
-- Win2k: "It's not so much that it's only 65,000 bugs, it's just that they stopped at 65,535 to prevent an overflow."
-------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!  
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?   That is, pouring money into a black hole?   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?   Some "smart" IT managers, when their budget suddenly gets cut, might opt for the "cheaper" solution - which wouldn't be your product, IMHO.   With Linux, maybe it would be competitive, but with Win2K it's not.   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.   THIS is the reality that IBM (and any other solutions provider) must deal with.   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.   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)
-- Win2k: "It's not so much that it's only 65,000 bugs, it's just that they stopped at 65,535 to prevent an overflow."
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 could never do it and respect the fact that you can!   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.
;-)
And here is where the IT department needs to really do some research and not just follow the Pied Piper of Redmond.   What often happens is laziness, relying on you (the provider) to make the decision, and then when things go sour, they drop you.   I guess that's the risk you take for being a provider...
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.  
-- Win2k: "It's not so much that it's only 65,000 bugs, it's just that they stopped at 65,535 to prevent an overflow."
By PoS, I assume you mean a thin client running Linux, like this?
;-)
/.ed that website of the guy who hacked the $99 ($299 in some locations) flat screen i-opener.
Wow...   That's a nice looking unit.   Grovel grovel... I want one.
But I know I probably couldn't afford it...  
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.   That's why folks
-- Win2k: "It's not so much that it's only 65,000 bugs, it's just that they stopped at 65,535 to prevent an overflow."
.... 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...   I mean, whaddya have?   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!   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.   Their real rivals are the Dells and the Gateways.
-- Win2k: "It's not so much that it's only 65,000 bugs, it's just that they stopped at 65,535 to prevent an overflow."
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
We may not imagine how our lives could be more frustrating and complex—but Congress can. – Cullen Hightower
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?
One only needs to visit IBM's developerWorks occassionally to see their interest in Linux, Java, XML, etc. Their Linux page is here.
-tim
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.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
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.)
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
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?
---------
"There is no knowledge that is not power"
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.
More race stuff in one place,
than any one place on the net.