Slashdot Mirror
Ask IBM's Linux Marketing Director
His name is Scott Handy, and his full title is "Director, Linux Solutions Marketing, IBM Software Group." You want to know how to market Linux? Or how IBM's going about it? Scott ought to know. One question per post, please. We'll send 10 of the highest-moderated ones off tomorrow, and expect Scott's answers back in about a week.
Doesn't the console-oriented (edit each command line locally on terminals and press [enter] to send the whole string) nature of the 400 make it basically impossible to run an operating system other than OS/400 or similar?
D
----
I'm not trying to belittle the Linux effords that IBM currently shows, but if I look i.e. at JFS I wonder how much resources IBM is actually putting behind those effords. It's a port from OS/2 JFS not AIX. Why? The project isn't moving very fast nor is the mailing list very active...
Would it help create a "critical mass" of Linux Desktops if a multi-vendor consensus desiged a quickly installable, common "first boot" Linux Desktop?
Is there value, in market building terms, of bringing to desktop Linux "The Familiar Windows Experience" of allowing a low-to-medium skilled user to sit down at a new-to-them "Standard" machine where they have a reasonable expection of knowing where resources can be found?
- By "Common Desktop Install", I mean a single CD which would after 3-8 clicks, auto install a fairly well tuned desktop version of the OS with a single GUI showing, plus several major productivity packages like Star Office, Netscape etc. Under the hood stuff would still be unique to each vendor, but what the lightweight user saw would be highly consistent.
I do not suggest removing the customizing capabilities of the OS, only the creation of a common first boot desktop for the masses.In Nearly All Paradigms, Shift Happens.
I strongly disagree. As an organization gets bigger it tends to be less monolithic and more factional. We don't (or shouldn't) label the United States Government as hypocritical when Congress and the President have different opinions on the issues and try to implement different plans. We don't (or shouldn't) lable the EU as hypocritical because the French and Germans have different policies on some issues. Why should IBM be labeled as hypocritical because two of its branches take different views about the importance of user freedom vs. restriction?
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
In a world where one OS (Windows) has a de facto monopoly on the desktop market, how then do you go about winning people over to Linux? By "people," I am not just referring to those with a high degree of technological knowledge -- I am referring to everyone. Students, businesses, heck, even housewives.
---
DOOR!!
I pledge allegiance to the flag...
of the Corporate States of America...
What do you see as a viable economic model for Software and/or Software/Services companies who want to develop purely Open Source software for marketing to Consumers and or Customers? What does this mean for Business to Business relationships involving such companies?
Windows is more convenient than Linux just as having an ingrown toenail is more convenient than seeing a podiatrist.
Will IBM's marketing actually get behind this? At one time IBM had a superior OS (OS/2). However, due to their marketing (OR LACK THERE OF), IBM allowed the evil M$ to market it's way to the giant it is today. I believe IBM is capable of making a superior product again, but without proper marketing, and support from higher IBM management, it will sit on the shelf like OS/2.
--
Care about electronic freedom? Consider donating to the EFF!
Sun puts it's money where it's mouth is by ensuring that everyone from CEO to secretary uses a Sun box running Solaris as their workstation. They don't use Microsoft Office, they use Sun Star Office instead.
So if IBM has such faith in Linux, why aren't they using Linux on their workstation internally. Even if that is too big a step for the entire company, the tech staff would be able to cope if you made the move.
Given that any company can market Linux tools and computers, where's IBM's edge in this market over other players like Compaq and RedHat who have been there longer?
What's your damage, Heather?
Was the defacement of city streets with paint that "didn't clean up as well as we thought" intended, or just a nice side effect? Would you reccommend this path to others? Do you know where I can buy some highway paint? I hear that stuff is really tough to clean.
How does Microsoft's current campaign against Open Source in general (and the GPL and Linux) affect thinking and plans in the marketing arm? Is this something to worry about, or just Microsoft redirection? Do you have any plans to get anyone to attend the discussion hosted by O'Reilly? What is the best way for the average person (essentially, non-CIO's) to influence platform shifts?
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
--
Do you plan to market Linux as an enterprise workstation replacement? Specifically, I wonder if you plan to market Linux desktops for replacements for Windows 9x/NT/2000 workstations, and how you plan to market them.
Now, I'm a happy consumer of several IBM products. I'm not seeking to question the validity of the Big Blue intellectual property vault, nor am I doubting IBM's ability to develop innovative products.
I've looked at several of your corporation's software patents. In my humble, uneducated opinion, patents such as these (and others) owned by IBM might conceivably either be enforced against, or hinder (just by their existence, prima facie validity and the implied, interpreted threat of an infringement suit)the work of a free-software developer.
We've heard what Bruce Perens has to say about software patents. I'd like to ask you just how far is IBM willing to go in embracing Linux and/or the free-software movement? Specifically, is IBM willing to take a hard look at its patent practices, and potentially committ to sharing its intellectual property with free software developers?
Sincerely,
Vergil
Vergil Bushnell
Insects and Grafitti Photos
In it's 1995 Annual Report, IBM touted Network Computing as the "Future of Computing". I'm not completely sure of the history, but that seems to have died, to be replaced by - ostensibly - MS's .NET strategy.
Can Network Computing be considered something of a 'Holy Grail' for the business software environment? And is it IBM strategy to leverage Linux to support an alternative NC architecture based on OS concepts, tools, and products; one that could possibly usurp the MS monopoly on the business software environment?
Please say Yes.
SDMI: Finally! Music that won't rip or burn! Brought to you by the fine folks at RIAA.
Could you please tell us what the most common variation on the "Why should we use Linux instead of (what we already have)" question you receive is? What is your general response?
Thanks in advance.
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
A lot of people (me, too) embrace the Linux philosophy as well as Linux itself. IBM has embraced Linux; how much of the philosophy have they embraced?
As a PR person, you try to encourage a certain viewpoint. During meetings, is the Linux philosophy presented as a tool to be used against us, or as a way of changing people's concepts of software-- that is, do you try to sell the Linux philosophy as well as Linux, or are you selling Linux by using the philosophy?
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
In my opinion Linux has a long way to go before it can make it to the home desktop. Ease of use is one of the greatest inhibitors. However, the corporate desktop has very different requirements. Security, remote management, reliablility, simple license management and at the same time, a corporate desktop requires only a handful of very clearly defined employee responsabilities.
As I see it, the greatest limitation Linux experiences on the corporate desktop is interfacing with customers running MS Office, and secondly, Linux lacks a corporate email package. That requirement could be filled quite perfectly by Lotus Notes.
Is IBM taking steps to sell Linux on the corporate desktop as a simple and secure alternative to Microsoft's mindboggleingly complex Licensing and questionable security? If so, what is being done to address the lack of MS Office document compatability, and the lack of a client email/database package such as Lotus Notes?
Today I came across a ZDNet story (yah, yah) where MS sid it will spend $1 billion US to market and promote WXP. You guys have said you'll spend the same amount on Linux.
Now: for as long as I can remember, IBM has been synonymous with "good technology, bad marketing". OS/2 stands out as a particular example.
Do you think that a cool (Dr. Evil style) 1 billion of MS's marketing dollars can match the same amount of IBM's best and brightest cranking on Linux? Do you see this as a marketing battle, a technology battle, or both (I doubt its neither, although philosophical issues factor in too)?
ZOMG I WOULD LOVE TO KNOW ABOUT YOUR FEELINGS ON MACINTOSH VERSUS WINDOWS, VI VERSUS EMACS, AND HOW YOU'RE NOT A DORK
Now that IBM appears to commited to Linux, where does this put AIX? And will we see an AIX compatibility library for Linux?
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
Hi,
I've been generally impressed at the level of support IBM has given to various open source project such as Apache. Other areas however have obviuously been neglected, for example the opening of drivers. Witness this recent thread on the linux kernel mailing list in which one Dan Streetman from IBM states plainly:
But management doesn't listen to me when I say it will never get accepted so I had to make a token effort of submitting it to prove it won't get accepted. And I did try hard to convince them to release the actual driver but it didn't work.
This obviously makes linux developers doubtful about the real motivations behind IBMs open source efforts:
I find it very odd indeed with IBM's big voice of open source praise, yada yada, and what Lou has said in the past, that there would be any question at all of wether it would be open source or not. Isn't big blue behind open source? Or is it just for publicity? Makes me wonder now... -- Mike A. Harris
My question is the following:
Will IBMs open source effort in the future be limited to the obvious areas (net/web related stuff, linux ports to IBM hardware) or are there any plans to educate other IBM departments about the benefits of opening the development process? If yes, are there any practical examples (winmodem drivers for thinkpad laptops, etc.)?
Thanks in advance
I strongly believe that trying to be clever is detrimental to your health. -- Linus Torvalds
How can IBM reconcile it's spoken commitment to Linux and Free software software with it's center-stage activity in projects like CPRM on harddisks and SDMI for music?
Even if IBM does not recognize that these user hostile technologies are at 180 degrees to the ethics and values on which the society in which they wish to parktake are based, how do they believe that these technologies, which rely on laws to keep the user from working around them, can possibly made compatible with an open software model?
Does IBM believe that they continue to use the Linux and Free software message of Freedom and cooperation ("Peace, love, linux") as a corporate image while working on technologies whose only purpose is the control users and take away their natural freedoms?
How does IBM as a corporation stand in regard to the American DMCA and similiar acts internationally within the WIPO treaties, which many Free software developers consider a threat to our movement?
&& Oskar Sandberg
I work for a very, very, very huge company that still uses quite a few MS products.
.ppt format? :-)
Several other like-minded folks across many of the daughter business have recently begun trying to formulate a plan of attack viz. Linux acceptance.
I assume when IBM pitches Linux to corporations you have some sort of metric that gauges linux against other os's and shows various strengths and weaknesses.
Are these metrics/comparisons available to the general public? Preferebly in management friendly
Given that there are a wealth of Linux distributions already available in the marketplace, it seems that IBM has to choose one (or more), or create one (or more).
So, will IBM create a Linux distribution (or multiple distributions)?
If not, why? And what distributions will/has IBM choose to support/market?
If so, why? And will that/those distribution(s) compete with other distributions (i.e. be directly available) or only (or at least primarily) available as part of an IBM 'solution'?
1. Any plans to release (note I didnt say open) lotus notes for linux? This is a very strong product, very popular in corporate circles (even now!), and would help in the fight for legitimacy in the eyes of corporate managers.
2. Any plans to open ANY of the technologies in OS/2 to the linux/open source world? Since it is not a currently supported product (although that seems to change from year to year), it shouldnt hurt the bottom line too much. Any technology you can offer from previous OS efforts are going to be helpful.
Thanks for answering these questions, as I have been wondering about them for months.
GPL'd web-based tradewars themed space game
First off, by way of disclaimer, I'm an IBM employee, but am posting this as an individual and am quite sure my manager neither knows nor cares about the contents of my question. :)
It's great to see that IBM is committing to an open approach, both in their specific funding of Linux development, but also in their more general push to use open, standard technologies like XML and Java, and to participate in the standards process. On the other hand, IBM holds more patents than any other business in the world, by a fair majority, and what's more, are quite proud of this standing. Now I am not at all knocking IBMs desire to produce patentable technology, and I do think it is indicative of their technological leadership that they have acquired them,
but...
I'm wondering how IBM's dedication to openness will interact with their commitment to producing patentable technology. Will IBM's contributions to open source projects include these patentable ideas, and will open source projects in which IBM participates be licensed to employ said ideas, even to freely distribute software based on them? If IBM is willing to do this, how will they ensure that their patented IP is not picked up and incorporated into competing products? If not, could you give us some insight into the decision making process as regards these patents, and why IBM's openness strategy does not extend to them?
Johnath
Ooh. I've got another. Given how Gung-Ho IBM is about the whole Open Source thing, why do they insist on basing the entire internal business on a proprietary mail system (Lotus Notes) and proprietary word processor formats (Mostly Lotus Word Pro, though I occassionally get a MS Word .DOC file.) This makes it hard for the previously mentioned techies to live the Windows-Free existence that they so fervently desire. Can someone give the Lotus people the stunningly effective Al Capone teamwork speech and get them to document their file formats or at least release specs for them?
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
How do you approach your OS/2 users? Does IBM plan to move them to Linux platforms? Will any of the OS/2 goodies, like the presentation manager's link database, move to Linux?
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
I work for a fairly small computing firm which relies mainly on AIX but also has a fair number of Linux boxen around.
In the past few months, the question has come up more than once as to whether AIX or Linux is a more appropriate solution to whatever problem my company is current facing...and often times we've installed Linux on commodity hardware instead of buying a fancy RS/6000 machine and buying another copy of AIX.
My question is that as Linux grows in stability and wider corporate-level acceptance, what's IBM going to do about it? IBM has invested a good deal in the AIX system and I'm sure that they generate a fairly hefty revenue stream from it. Do you forsee any of the IBM Linux initiatives losing funding if they encroach on AIX market share?
On a side note, how 'bout a JFS install disk like the XFS one?
IBM makes PowerPCs. Linux runs on PowerPCs. Does IBM's commitment to Linux imply that they will take the logical step and we will finally see a commodity (non-Apple) PPC motherboard?
This project always seems to generate so much enthusiasm when presented here or in other forums that its continued non-existence is shocking. Particularly since the PPC's superior electrical characteristics have made it all the more intriguing in the current energy climate.
Kill, Tux, kill!
A few years ago I was looking for a desktop
with linux pre-installed or, at least, with
no OS. A few of the big companies (IBM, Dell)
had just made some statements about how cozy
they were with linux, so I called IBM to see
how serious this was.
I told the salesperson that I wanted to buy
an Aptiva with linux. She told me IBM sells
(and I swear I'm not making this up)
"Wintel Solutions".
I told her that's an oxymoron.
She started explaining to me: " yes, it stands
for Windows and Intel".
So, two questions really, do your sales training
manuals now explain the difference between an
acronym and an oxymoron, and can I buy an Aptiva
(or whatever they are called now) with linux
installed or with no OS? One single Aptiva, not
an officefull? And... the price will be less than if I
got it with Win (right? no OS license fee).
To me this is the litmus test of a company's
commitment to linux. I'm sick of hearing that
to get linux I need to buy a server or that
I can't be sold a compuer without an OS because
that means I'm pirating my OS.
"Never bullshit a bullshitter" All That Jazz
Microsoft's strength is largely in its public relations machine. When they talk, the media listens. Craig Mundie's (and therefore Microsoft's) opinion of open source and their own related plans made industry journal headlines. I'd bet many business managers have learned about MS's "shared source" plans. But there's no consistantly loud (or heard) front made against MS statements. Execs hear "open source: bad, shared source: good" from MS, but don't hear other opinions.
Does IBM plan on investing more in the image of Linux and open source? Will there be strong defensive marketing against MS statements? Do you think a closer balance can be made between pro-Microsoft and pro-Linux marketing?
---
Developers: We can use your help.
Although your marketing and R&D seems to be focused on the server roles of Linux, do you see Linux as a desktop solution, and if so how are you helping develop that area?
As a customer who has been with IBM for years we are looking at retiring some of our old AS/400's. We are trying to find other uses for them, and with over 100GB of disk Linux makes an attractive option, but we are saddened to see that IBM seems to have made no effort to try to support Linux at all on the 400.
With the recent support IBM has been giving to the Linux community are there any plans to start devoting resources to the Linux on the as/400 project?
DocWatson
MessEdUp
#/var/www/v