Slashdot Mirror
Scott Handy Tells What's Up With IBM and Linux
1) Hypocrisy?
by Hobbex
How can IBM reconcile its spoken commitment to Linux and Free software
software with its center-stage activity in projects like CPRM on
harddisks and SDMI for music?
Handy:
I really think these are two entirely separate issues. Our support of
the Open Source movement is based on the belief that with certain
technologies, such as Linux, innovation can be spurred through
collaboration and the free exchange of ideas. Open Source works on the
basic premise of constant change, evolution and improvement of the code by
the community.
On the other hand, our involvement with efforts such as CPRM and SDMI respects the right that some content providers have to protect their intellectual assets if they choose to do so. Technical protection measures are an important way to provide that protection. The content that would be protected here -- most likely music, video and other art forms -- is unlike open source code in that it was is not designed to be modified by the masses or freely distributed. (By the way, CPRM is open -- the cipher and algorithms, along with sample code -- are published.)
For us, what it comes down to is supporting the rights of all content creators to make their own choice. If you want to distribute your intellectual property openly and freely, that's great and we'll support you. As you know, not every software vendor is willing to make that commitment. And if you're an individual or organization that wants or needs to protect your digital content, we will develop solutions that work for you while offering maximum value and ease of use to consumers and helping to create an environment where all Internet content providers coexist peacefully.
2) IBM + Linux = PPC?
by Xoro
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.
Handy:
Yes we are very committed to Linux and to our work with PPCs. I've
gotta say, it's a bit of a stretch to say that Linux+PPC "commodity
(non-Apple) PPC motherboards" is the next logical step :-). We have been
working with customers on reference designs using Linux, but we don't have
a board available for general use. The steps we have already taken for
Linux/PPC, includes Linux support on the IBM eServer iSeries and pSeries
which are both PPC based servers. The iSeries is geared toward business
application systems, while the pSeries is squarely aimed at Sun and
addresses the high performance UNIX market. This activity was originally
supported with YellowDog in '99 and 2000, and now includes SuSE, with TL
and RH coming. And, we're currently working with ISVs to support Linux on
the PPC for server apps.
IBM is very active in this area and is currently the maintainer of the Linux PPC tree.
3) Linux vs AIX
by milkmandan9
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 foresee any of the IBM Linux initiatives losing funding if they encroach on AIX market share?
Handy:
You're right, we've invested a great deal in AIX and Linux. We've
integrated our AIX and Linux efforts into one strategy for our customers.
Basically, AIX continues to be our industrial-strength, highly scalable
UNIX platform, and we've taken steps to integrate Linux into our UNIX
strategy. Earlier this year we announced a new version of AIX - AIX 5L,
which offers an affinity for Linux, which allows Linux applications to be
easily ported and recompiled on AIX. We also created a new toolkit to
help
Linux developers create applications that take advantage of the affinity
between AIX and Linux. The bottom line is that there is a place for both
AIX and Linux. There are still some applications that require the
industrial strength capabilities of AIX and some that are perfect for
Linux. We work closely with our customers to help them choose the best
solution for their needs.
To answer your second question, no, we don't anticipate any Linux initiatives to lose any funding.
4) PR
by truthsearch
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?
Handy:
You asked if we plan on investing more in the image of Linux and open
source, well, we're already investing more than a $1 billion in Linux
across the corporation. We continue to talk publicly about Linux and the
open source community regularly. Our execs have been featured keynote
speakers at a couple of LinuxWorld Expos and smaller conferences all
around
the world. We've also been successful in "getting the word out" about
some
big Linux customer wins, which I think has been very helpful in showing
the
corporate community that Linux is ready for primetime.
To answer your second question about striking a balance between pro-Microsoft and pro-Linux marketing, I really can't speak to Microsoft's marketing plans. IBM looks at the Linux space mainly from the server side from a go-to-market perspective. In just a few short years, IDC named Linux as the fastest growing server operating system in the world - second only to Microsoft. To me, that's the area to watch and the area the community should be most proud of its accomplishments.
If you want to see "everything" we're doing on Linux go here: www.ibm.com/linux. It's a lot.
5) IBM Linux distro?
by ddstreet
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'?
Handy:
To answer your first question, and I get this one all the time, no,
IBM
has no plans to create a Linux distribution. There's no demand for IBM to
create a Linux distribution. Linux is not an IBM operating system, its
the
community's and IBM simply supports and contributes to 1) the community
development effort behind Linux and 2) enablement of our hardware,
software
and services around Linux.
As for which distro's, it's our intent to support our customers by partnering with Linux distribution companies that can help meet their needs. Right now the main three are Red Hat, SuSE and TurboLinux for us and they have agreements with us to provide their distributions on the entire IBM eServer line (xSeries, pSeries, iSeries and zSeries) and they all have software agreements to resell our IBM WebSphere, DB2, Lotus and/or Tivoli software. We also continue to see a variety of Linux distributions emerge to meet the needs of customers in specific geographies and IBM groups work to support opportunities there. For example we continue to partner worldwide with Caldera on our xSeries servers; Mandrake is one of the leaders in France on the client side, so the IBM ViaVoice team supports that distro; and Red Flag is emerging as a strong player in China, so our latest version of DB2 database supports Red Flag, etc. We also work with MonteVista and Lineo and are also increasing our support of Debian overall (we've actually had some level of support for them all along).
6) OS/2
by twitter
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?
Handy:
Like any other customer, we listen to the needs of our OS/2 customers,
and based on those needs, we help them choose how to move forward. I'm
quite well versed in these customer situations and can tell you they have
a
very diverse set of needs. Some lead to very different conclusions. Some
of
our OS/2 customers want to stay with OS/2 as long as they can, and some
are
ready to move off of it sooner rather than later. So with that said, if
the
application they are using or want to move to can be easily moved to Linux
or is available on Linux, that is an excellent option. This works great if
its Java-based or if it runs on our middleware (DB2, WebSphere, Lotus,
Tivoli) a lot of which already works on Linux. In this scenario, a direct
move works really well.
On the client, if they are ready to move, we usually find that they need to move to Windows, but Linux is sometimes a viable alternative if they can use browser based apps or use one of the many office suites available on Linux that can meet productivity app requirements. (and some of these OS/2 clients are basically fixed function intelligent "terminals" with home grown applications only - and for those apps it depends on the tools they used to create them and whether those tools are available on Linux and/or Windows).
On the server, some customers want to stay on OS/2 for a few more years, make the move to Windows 2000 or Linux, or some combination, depending on the application requirements of the customer. These are sophisticated customers who generally use OS/2 for advanced functions so their needs vary greatly.
On to goodies, some of the OS/2 goodies have moved to Linux, like the JFS we just announced as GA on June 30th, was from the OS/2 base.
Now on your one specific PM example, I've never actually heard of "presentation manager's link database" and asked some PM developers in Austin and they couldn't quite surmise what you were getting at so I'm not sure what I'm really answering there. My guess is it is a resource link (DLL) specific to PM that would not directly work easily with KDE or GNOME or it would have been done with a .SO already.
7) Linux for the 400...
by Ryan_Terry
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?
Handy:
Actually, we've already done the work on that server. Today, the IBM
eServer iSeries (formerly the AS/400) runs Linux as well as OS/400
starting
with models 270's and 8xx. We've seen an increased interest from our
customers and Business Partners for Linux-based solutions for the iSeries
-- it's a great configuration for customers who want to consolidate
workloads from a variety of other servers in their shop to run on the
Linux
LPAR (logical partition) in their iSeries.
If you're interested in more detail, here's the Web site: www.ibm.com/eserver/iseries/linux.
8) Hard Numbers for Soft Heads
by Dr. Smeegee
I work for a very, very, very huge company that still uses quite a few
MS products.
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? Preferably in management friendly .ppt format? :-)
Handy:
While we have a great deal of focus on Linux, IBM supports multiple
operating systems. In the IBM Software Group for instance, MQSeries runs
on 35 platform - which is an amazing number. With that many OSs out in
the
market, I've never seen a customer chart like the one you described,
showing the strengths and weaknesses between the particular OSs.
The information we use, that really resonates with customers, shows the basic market acceptance of Linux which is based on the IDC figures which place Linux as the fastest growing server operating system in the world, second only to Windows in volume, on the server. We also point to the projected growth rate of Linux being higher than Windows thru 2004.
If I had to hand management something with data points and a fancy format, I'd hand them this April/May 2001 - Linux edition of Management Directions which can be viewed/downloaded from: here (note: PDF is 2MB)
9) MS Office Filters and Lotus Notes for Linux
by Dr. Evil
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 responsibilities.
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 mindbogglingly 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?
Handy:
We're working to help the Linux OS on all fronts with server activity
as a priority, especially in helping it scale in the enterprise. In
general, we're helping on the client side (with our support of KDE and
GNOME and other client oriented open source projects) and working on
embedded Linux projects too.
As for development priorities of our own commercially licensed software, we're focused on where Linux's market penetration is strongest and where the opportunity for market acceptance is the highest. We see the demand most clearly on the server. Based on that feedback, our development of DB2, WebSphere, Lotus and Tivoli software is predominantly focused on the server side. Our strategy is to support browser based access from Linux desktops to our server based software (like using a browser to access WebSphere Application Server on the Server). In the case of our Lotus Domino for Linux offer, it's important to understand that browser users on the Linux desktop have full access to Lotus Webmail and can also access Domino collaborative applications from their browsers. Right now, we're not planning native ports of Lotus Notes or Lotus SmartSuite to Linux desktops since the demand from our customers just isn't there yet.
10) Open Source and Patents
by Johnath
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?
Handy:
Well, there's a lot to answer in this question. First of all, we
don't think open source software and intellectual property rights are
mutually exclusive - for IBM, it's not an either or proposition. As you
noted, we strongly support the open source movement and believe the
community contributes significantly to innovation in the industry. We
also
believe we employ some of the best and brightest developers in the world
and that our work on IP projects encourage innovation, as well. As you
probably know, we work with the community on various open source projects
by providing technical input, as well as code. IBM's decision to make
code
available to the open source community is based on interest from the
community. Before we open source code, we want to make sure there will be
enough support from the community to propel the technology forward. We've
been active in Apache, Mozilla and JFS to name just a few.
More info here on our open source efforts and contributions: www.ibm.com/developerworks/opensource/.
Has everybody forgotten the problems caused by the Lotus crappy protection and by dongles? Maybe this time they've got it right. Let them contractually comit to paying consequential damages and I'll be willing to be a guinea pig. But the smart money says that if they get away with it, the honest consumer will end up suffering.
Or for that matter, preach "Open Source", use FreeBSD as the core to what used to be the WhistleJet, and yet no support for the BSD's?
How about the sabbotoge of FreeBSD on the A20 ThinkPads?
It's really good to see this kind of clarity from an exec. Good work, and it really does reinforce my perception of IBM as a class act.
Your search for differential cryptanalysis might work better if you spelled it correctly.
Yeah, my Dad works at IBM, and a lot of people in the Rochester, MN LUG work there as well. Lack of Notes support on Unix (mostly AIX and Linux) is a really annoying problem for those folks. Of course, the Windows Notes client isn't exactly the best mailer in the world either...
Still, I think people would be extremely happy to just see some documentation put up on how to communicate with Notes servers. I know that Notes support is one of the big questions hanging over the Evolution mailer, for instance..
--
There is nothing hypocritical about supporting both Open Source software development and copyright protection.
I agree. But, there's a difference between protecting copyright and crippling hardware. The goal of CPRM is essentially that of a curfew-- curtail the legitimate rights of individuals by creating an artificial barrier in the hopes of stifling a few crimes.
CPRM, DMCA, etc, all assume one thing: everyone is a criminal, and will act in a criminal way if given the chance.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
hmm... I'm typing on my freshly-issued-by-the-corporation A21m right now. I'm getting an idea. A wonderful, awful idea.... *grin
"Right now, we're not planning native ports of Lotus Notes or Lotus SmartSuite to Linux desktops since the demand from our customers just isn't there yet."
Strange. The (perceived) lack of a solid office suite for Linux is the biggest thing holding back the desktop. Yet IBM isn't porting SmartSuite because nobody is using Linux on the desktop.
I've used StarOffice and a couple of the other suites, and they're good. But I think that IBM SmartSuite(TM) showing up on the Linux desktop would really make some waves and drive acceptance of the Linux desktop.
Actually, I'd hoped that Corel's office suite would pull this off, but it never got off the ground.
C'mon IBM - let's see that port! Heck, you could still charge for it. MS Office sets the price of office suites pretty high, so there's money to be made.
Food for thought.
I shudder to think about what happens when you try moving an app to another drive in Windows... *shudder* see? :)
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
There might have been an additional factor. I don't know if this was still true at the point when OS/2 got slaughtered in the marketplace
I don't know about the theory you present, but I have an additional factor to add as well. When OS/2 got slaughtered, as I understand it, it was largely due to the fact that you couldn't buy OS/2 without also paying for Windows due to Microsoft's per-processor (and later per-machine) licensing. Who wants to pay that much? Not many apparently.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
End users at the moment, and probably for a long time, are not capable of making full use of a computer without a diluted interface. To clarify, there will always be a need for a programmer to prepare the tools
You completely miss the point.
Of course the average end user lacks the skills to modify and adapt the source. Your average accountant can't understand the source to his spreadsheet, but he can find someone who does. If having feature X in program Y is going to make or break his business, he can quite easily contract out to a development firm to add feature X to open source program Y, and it doesn't matter what the agenda of program Y's original authors is. Doing this with proprietary code would require recoding the application from the ground up which is almost always cost prohibitive. This is the essential difference. This is the end user's power.
Handy draws distinctions between DRM technologies and Open Source software. And does so quite convincingly, in my opinion.
Are DRM technologies at odds with the principles of Free Software? Sure, that's an easy argument to make. But it's completely off-topic, because it has nothing to do with what Handy said.
My point exactly. It has nothing to do with what Handy said and everything to do with what Handy failed to say.
It's not possible to build DRM into a Free Software system. It just won't work. If you support DRM systems like SDMI, you're putting media out there which is fundamentally incompatible with Free systems. You can try to separate DRM technologies and Open Source software, but doing so means that you're going to keep Open Source systems off the desktop and, in many cases off the server, indefinitely as long as there is DRM controlled media out there that customers want to use. Saying that you support both is a paradox. What's interesting is that Handy tip toes around this paradox and makes a hand waving argument about the author's right to choose without mentioning any of the implications of supporting the technological enforcement of such rights.
You seem to mistake the ability to take something with the right to take something.
No, I do not. I fully understand the difference and I also fully support the all of the rights of copyright holders up to but not including the DMCA.
You say, I'm just copying numbers
I said no such thing. The "information wants to be free" or "it's just numbers" arguments are bunk and we all know that. Copyright exists for a reason and we should support it, but there needs to be a balance between the copyright holder's rights and the end user's right. DRM technologies tip the scales too far in favor of the rights holders.
Just because someone leaves their door unlocked doesn't give you the right to enter their house and take pictures of it.
Of course not, but, if you sell me a picture of your house, you shouldn't have the right to come in to my house and tell me where I can or can not hang it. DRM controls how the end user is able to make use of purchased copyrighted material, something which was never before allowed prior to the DMCA. This is going too far.
The only "risk" I see DRM posing to Open Source products, is that they may not get support for some multimedia apps that Win/Mac does.
But this is the problem. It's not a "risk" or something that might "limit" the growth of Linux on the desktop. It's the fundamental killer of free software at home. As broadband becomes more popular and streaming audio and video from the net becomes ubiquitous, any operating system that can't make use of the media out there is dead. It doesn't make a damn bit of difference what alternative tools free software coders release, if people can't view the media they want, they'll stay away from free systems.
Combatting these kinds of technology is best done on multiple fronts. Yes, contacting senators and such is a good idea, but even the complete repeal of the DMCA is not sufficient to combat DRM technologies. The repeal of the DMCA would make breaking DRM legal again, but it would not make the impossition of DRM illegal. Therefore we still need technological countermeasures to break these systems as they're introduced.
Handy skirts around the main issues revolving around DRM technologies like CPRM and SDMI. He tries to portray them as separable from Free Software issues, when in reality, they are not.
The main purpose of Free Software is to place the power of the computer fully within the hands of the end user. With Free Software, the end user is capable of doing anything that can conceivably be done with the machine. DRM technologies work the other way around. They rely on manufacturers or closed source software developers to cripple the machine in ways that prohibit the end user from performing certain actions which the machine would otherwise be able to do.
I don't think you can reconcile these two approaches. You can not simultaneous provide the end user complete and total control over the hardware that he owns and still have digital rights management in place. There simply is no way for these two ideals to coexist peacefully since they are diametrically opposed to one another.
Er, I obviously meant ported from OS/2 (to Linux). Sorry.
Please see my other post.
Seriously, you don't want Presentation Manager.
> Not quite; WPS relies on PM for some facilities that are not present in X.
Like what, for example? AFAIK the WPS is only dependent on PM because it uses the PM to draw itself and the desktop, etc. and also uses the PM window classes to draw the windows for the class's "views" (open folder windows, etc.). Correct me if I'm wrong.
Naturally, it would take a bit of effort to port it to native X (different widgets, painting routines, awareness of window manager(s), and the like; PM is very different from X and is more like Win16/32 GUI API, I believe), but surely you aren't suggesting that WPS is tied down to PM in such a way that it would be impossible to have a port that was independent of PM and instead used another GUI? I seriously doubt that.
> ...and also uses the PM window classes to draw the windows for the class's "views" (open folder windows, etc.).
Sorry, that was worded pretty badly. What I meant was, "and also uses the PM window classes to draw the windows for a WPS class's 'views'." (This will make sense to most anyone who has interacted with WPS classes extensively and/or has done some WPS and PM programming.)
Uh, guys? It's the Workplace Shell (WPS) from OS/2 that you want (the SOM-based object-oriented desktop system), not Presentation Manager (merely the GUI API; we've got X and we don't need this).
I really would have liked to have seen an answer to the question of whether or not we will ever see Workplace Shell and SOM opened up and then ported to OS/2, but alas, the question was not phrased correctly and was thus (understandably) misunderstood by Mr. Handy and the OS/2 development team he consulted.
Maybe a follow-up interview is in order? ...
If you're wondering where I work that I'd have to be converting between Lotus and MS apps all the time, think about it for a minute.
Echelon?
__
__
Men with no respect for life must never be allowed to control the ultimate instruments of death.
GW Bu
UnixOS/2 is a great alternative for old OS/2'ers. Pretty much everything in Linux runs on OS/2. XFree86, Gimp, Gnome, KDE, etc. UnixOS/2 the distribution for OS/2 is currently in alpha and getting there. Based on Slack it uses rexx modified dialog install and pkgtool scripts. http://unixos2.org
-- Ted tsikora@powerusersbbs.com
IBM has an absolutely dismal history in marketing. If you want to know how to take a technically superior product and kill it by not saying anything, look to IBM. I was an OS/2 user for years before switching to linux. Basically what it comes down to is that IBM goes to big corporate execs, and works with them to find a solution that is "best" for them. M$, on the other hand, makes lots of noise, flaps its wings, and dumps a lot of money into creating public opinion. IMHO M$ has one of the best marketing departments in the world.
IBM has no interest in blowing money on public opinion. It's not their gig. They sell big honking server iron. They don't care what runs on it. They've just got to sell that iron. Don't expect IBM to do dick for linux's public image, unless you count sales data and contributed software as part of the public image. (which is absolutely great of them...don't get me wrong)
--Bob
1^2=1; (-1)^2=1; 1^2=(-1)^2; 1=-1; 1=0.
You seem to mistake the ability to take something with the right to take something. CPRM and SDMI do not stop anyone from receiving something that is freely given away. Hence, these technologies won't stop Open Source. They don't prevent anyone from using GPL, BSD or any other license. So you are confused. If an independent artist or producer chooses to release a work freely, these technologies won't stop them.
You are mistaking the fact that you currently have the ability to digitally copy a piece of music or video or program with the idea that you have the right to do so. You don't. When you do so, you break the law. Except in _limited_ fair use circustances. Giving a copy to your friend, does not qualify fair use. Making a documentary about music and using a clip does.
You say, I'm just copying numbers, I'm not actually taking anything. Just because someone leaves their door unlocked doesn't give you the right to enter their house and take pictures of it. Even though that doesn't take anything of theirs either.
The only "risk" I see DRM posing to Open Source products, is that they may not get support for some multimedia apps that Win/Mac does. And while this might limit the growth potential of Linux on the Desktop, that makes a very large assumption that Linux could ever make it on the Desktop anyways. It still doesn't stop Open Source developers from creating their own multimedia tools and porting them to Windows/Mac so there's free tools for everyone (Gimp).
You gripe about the technology. It's a waste of your time and effort, it won't yield the results you want. That's because you're griping about the symptom, not the disease. DRM technologies are mearly tools created to enforce the law. Instead, gripe about the laws to your senator, and try to change peoples opinion about buying music or producing music under such restrictions. While it's a long shot, at least it has a chance, unlike your current method. Change the laws, or better yet producers attitudes towards DRM, and all of a sudden there's no need for it.
Can you back this up? I would posit that in order to (support|provide) linux solutions of any flavour a few employees must at least be running it on their desktops, much less any servers.
Why is it that many people who claim to support standards have such atrocious spelling and grammar?
In fact, the word "patent" didn't even show up in his reply.
--
Life's a bitch but somebody's gotta do it.
Some distributions' packages of KDE depend on lm_sensors. You can't install the distributions' KDE packages without lm_sensors as well.
It doesn't really matter. What matters is that I don't want anyone else having the key to my disk. I don't use dongles. I don't use any copy protected software of any sort that I can avoid (well, I am willing to make an exception for games, but I notice that I don't currently own any copy protected games), and I really dislike hardware copy protection.
They say, once burnt, twice shy, but I was a slow learner. So I'm also going to be slow to convince that this time it's safe.
There is nothing about CPRM that sounds like it is intended for my benefit. So I won't buy it. Somebody else will sell what I want, and I'd be willing to pay more than a 20% bonus to avoid hardware copy protection.
Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
It wasn't lack of software that killed OS/2 in the early days. It was the fact that Big Blue didn't catch a clue that the keys to selling any current OS are #1) quality device drivers for darn near every imaginable combination of hardware, and #2) a commitment to providing inexpensive, powerful development tools to the small- and mid- level programming shops. Which is why I never invested much time beyond first looks and did not buy the OS/2 Smartsuite.
Of course, it hasn't helped since that OS/2 was so heavily X86 that for all practical purposes it couldn't be ported, or that Big Blue couldn't seem to market their way out of a paper bag back then.
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
What I do know is that I tried various flavors of OS-2 on several different generations of x86 PCs, with fairly generic video and audio cards, etc.
It was never a seemless install, and the resulting setups never stabilized to the extent that I was willing to entrust transferring my client's to an OS that I couldn't count on finding broad based support for.
Interestingly enough, I am recommending that some of these users move to Linux, because even without a single monolithic corporation, support for most things linux is only a mouse click or two away from someone else on the WWW who knows how to solve a specific problem.
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
Regardless, just don't install lm_sensors - there are plenty of gnome and several windowmaker dockapplets that use it.
--
Evan
"$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
I assume you work for IBM. Mr. Handy mentioned several times that IBM was pushing Linux primarily on the server side, and this fact is obvious from their various announcements of products and support.
You, however, (and presumably others) use it as a desktop OS within IBM.
How about a grass roots effort from users within IBM to get the corporate powers-that-be to consider a bigger effort to push Linux onto the desktop as well. Granted, Handy mentions that there isn't much demand yet from customers. IBM is a big industry mover, however, and a bit of unilateral movement in that directoy might help CREATE a bigger market. Classic chicken-and-egg problem.
Take Notes for example. In my own case, and in the case of many posters I've seen, the notes client is the last thing keeping me from making a complete switch to Linux. If IBM were to start with this one application, they might be surprised at the level of demand that would be generated.
I used OS/2 for several years, and I purchased SmartSuite for OS/2 (for $99, cheap by Office standards) as soon as it came out. All of the apps were WELL behind their counterparts in the Windows version, both in features and stability. Several of them felt like very poor, sluggish ports (similar to the way a WINE port feels on Linux). With that kind of effort, it was no wonder that it never became a killer app for OS/2. There were other, more responsive apps like DeScribe (WP) and Ahena (spreadsheet), and athough they weren't as widely know as SmartSuite, they worked better on OS/2.
Now, I agree that a GOOD port of SmartSuite, and particularly Notes client, would help bolster Linux as a desktop OS in corporate environments, but it would have to be done correctly, as a high quality native port of the CURRENT versions of the Windows applications, and it would be an uphill battle, since by now SmartSuite is off most PHB's radar screens.
Unfortunately, as Mr. Handy said outright, IBM has little interest in pushing Linux onto the desktop anyway.
distribution media is their choice. deal with it.
AND, part of the cipher involves a 256 byte "secret number" which can only be obtained if you sign a license agreement. Sounds REALLY open to me.
in crypto circles this "secret number" is called the "key". do you really expect them to give you the key to their encryption scheme??
Cretin - a powerful and flexible CD reencoder
IBM's current strategy regarding Patents does not appear to be about gaining a monopoly in patented areas, but instead seems focused on 3 main areas:
- To defend against Lawsuits: If company ABC threatens to sue over IBM's use of ABC patent #nnnnn, then IBM can threaten suit over ABC's use of IBM Patent #mmmmm.
- To prevent IBM lockout:Anyone writing software that is covered by an IBM Patent must reach an agreement with IBM. This gives IBM the opportunity to structure the agreement in a way that insures IBM will not be locked out of future progress in the area covered by her Patents.
- To reach into non-IBM Patent areas: IBM can use cross-licensing agreements to extend her reach into areas not covered by IBM Patents.
I believe all these areas can be enhanced by IBM making a subset of her Patents available under both proprietary agreements, and the GPL (or similar). I suggest that allowing some IBM Patents to be used in GPL software will increase the value of those Patents, without harm to IBM. Drastically decreasing the time and expense required to use IBM Patents will stimulate the use of said Patents and thus increase their value. In the field of Software, there is nothing more worthless than unused (or under utilized) Patents.Open Source could benefit the 3 areas as follows:
- To defend against Lawsuits:ABC's proprietary products would still be open to Patent -based countersuits by IBM. In addition, IBM could make use of ABC's Open Source products without the threat of lawsuit. This is probably the area that requires the most legal attention from IBM. It may be that some Patents may lose thier defensive weapon status if allowed to be used in Open Source. I believe this would not be the case for many -- if not most -- IBM Patents.
- To prevent IBM lockout:IBM can remain actively involved in the use and development of GPLed software that uses her Patents, without the need for an expensive, time consuming, proprietary agreement. A big win for IBM.
- To reach into non-IBM Patent areas:IBM could still enter into cross licensing agreements as before, but IBM's contribution of Patents to Open Source could stimulate other companies to contribute Open Source software in areas not covered by IBM Patents. IBM could immediately use and extend this software without the need for expensive and time consuming cross licensing agreements. A big win for IBM.
Of course, IBM could be hotly debating this issue internally right now. Lawyers are doing research, a policy is being hammered out, and IBM does not want to release half-baked information regarding use of her Patents. If this is the case, please give us a hint that the Patent issue is being considered within IBM. We are patient, we can waitOn the other hand, it may be that IBM does not think people are interested in this issue, or IBM does not want to deal with it. If this is the case, please know that many people, including myself, consider Patents to be the number one contribution that IBM can make to Open Source.
I will even go so far as to recommend to IBM that she keep her $1 Billion and open up some useful Patents instead!
Jonathan Weesner
San Antonio, TX
I think this is a reference to Jack Handy:c s/deepthoughts.html
http://www-personal.umd.umich.edu/~nhughes/htmldo
Google is your friend...
deus does not exist but if he does
I've seen a lot of Linux since I came to IBM at the beginning of the year, but since I'm working with Linux developers, that's hardly surprising. Most of them have either one Linux desktop or two workstations, one Windows and one Linux.
No idea how much of the corporation does use Linux, and the internal software pages mostly concern themselves with only Windows and AIX, but I've never gotten any "anti-Linux" vibes here. The closest I ever got was when I had to attend a session on open-source development at IBM. Seemed to be healthy paranoia - not "don't use and contribute to free software", but "if you contribute to free software at all let us know beforehand, so we can screen your work to make sure we don't violate any licenses."
Naked.
But I still have not seen anything that comes close to matching the functionality of PM on Linux.
I'll say. Back in 94 (Warp 3.0) before Windows 95 came out, I was convinced that IBM had a great product that would beat Win95 into the ground. Technically, it beat it all to hell. Flat memory model, true multitasking etc. etc. etc. The biggest thing was usability. I installed it into an office full of technophobe bookkeepers and they loved it. The true strength of OS/2 has always been the WPS. Object based, not oriented, moving targets automatically updated links (shortcuts for the MS challenged) and many other great usability features. Legendary stability (ask any Canadian bank what they run at the teller and inside the ATM) and yet... it wasn't enough. As soon as Mick and the boys "Started Up" it became apparent that a shoddy, poorly concieved, bug riddled piece of rabbit dung was going to win. Some say good MS marketing, bad IBM marketing, I say it was a case of an entire industry being bought and paid for with FUD and promises of a better world.
I still use OS/2, mainly for dabbling in REXX and playing with. It's still the coolest OS out there.
Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power.
OS/2 2.0 command line is still used in a lot of ATM's. Reason: Stability. No blue screens.
Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power.
my god. i just realized i took flamebait :)
I keep trying to pick fights, but I can't shake this Excellent karma.
Hey hey hey. Be nice. If you actually READ what he said up there, you'd notice that they have no need for Linux internally. Linux isn't ready for the desktop yet. And since they have other VERY diesel OS's of thier own, it makes sense to use those, especially because of the company's scale.
That doesn't immediately mean that their commitment to the platform isnt there. If a Honda salesment drives a Dodge pickup instead, it doesn't immediately that Honda's suck. They just don't suit his needs.
Dirk
I keep trying to pick fights, but I can't shake this Excellent karma.
I think the problem raised by DRM technologies is too big to leave to a company, even as big as IBM, or even a consortium of companies. This is because the rights being managed are not inherent and inalienable rights, but stem from a bargain between the the entire public and creators of information.
The bargain is this: the public grants exclusive copyrights to a work for a limited time to the creators or their asignees, in return for the public using that work as they see fit (other than creating commercial copies).
Viewed in this light, the idea of digital rights management is not inherently bad -- it can serve a good purpose. It addresses the problem that computer technology has made copyrights harder for the copyright holders to police.
However, the problem is other things that are being slipped into the bargain under the rubric of copyright management. First, it limits the rights of members of the public to use the work as they see fit (for example, fair use copies). Second, encrypting a work essentially extends the copyright holder's control over it in perpetuity.
In other words, DRM as I understand it is now envisioned doesn't just enforce the bargain between copyright holders and the public (as well it should). It fundamentally changes the bargain to the detriment of the public. This is why participating in the development of DRM technologies is a potentially a reprensible thing -- apart from whether you think open/free software is a good thing or not.
I think DRM technologies should be legally required to meet the following requirements:
(1) The consumer should have the ability to have digital keys which will unlock the copyrighted material on ANY device which they own.
(2)Illegal key sharing should be technologically discouraged, perhaps by requiring that installation of a key on a device be mediated by a trusted key management service.
(3) Consumers should be able to obtain a special key that permanently unlocks a specific work that has fallen into the public domain for some reason. The term of copyright enforcement would be ended by the distribution of this key. This would allow the legal system of a country to extend copyright terms OR abridge them. It would also allow works to fall into the public domain by other means.
These changes would give the public an equal footing in striking the copyright bargain. It should not be within the power of any private entity to alter the nature of this bargain -- either by unauthorized duplication of copyrighted works, or by interfering with legal copying of works it does not own, or by excercising extralegal control over uses of works that it happens to own copyright to.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
I used to be religious before, but I'm quite agnostic now. The important thing is to be able to do your job well and fast. "Eating your own dogfood" is _only_ useful to weed out defects in the product. Not to satisfy some meaningless jihad.
I mean, Sun's gotta get a clue. They are a non-entity in the client space. Why force their non-techies to use Sun boxes ?
Finally don't even talk about costs. I'm sure it's much much cheaper to get the employees x86 boxes from whoever. More importantly, think of all those powerful SPARC chips (which were designed for I/O intensive systems) being wasted on X !! They are best used with Sun's customers.
There is actually a lot of Linux within IBM, we like it, use it, develop on it, etc. I'm writting this in konqueror right now on a NetVista running Redhat 7.1 on my desktop. I work with a lot of people who are very enthusiastic about Linux. And yes it is a PR move too but don't you think that having the largest computer company in the world support Linux it pretty positive PR for Linux?
Actually, you'll find *tons* of PPC machines on IBM desktops (like the RS/6k 43p/150 I'm writing this from)... And speaking as a person, not an IBM rep, there is a lot of Linux to be found around the site... in certain areas. Our chip design/simulation software doesn't run natively on Linux (hence the RS boxen), and there is obviously a lot of call for NT/98/2k (Notes, Smart Suite). I'm among the many who wish there was a native Linux port of Notes - we just need to make some more noise for that one.
--
"It's tough to be bilingual when you get hit in the head."
Hehe - I'm an (rather infrequent these days) K-Lug'r myself. It's been quite some time since I've physically attended, tho.
--
"It's tough to be bilingual when you get hit in the head."
I think it is a little poor style on behalf of the Slashdot editors to accept that 9/10ths of my question was cut off. I could rightfully claim that the first sentence of my question was taken out of context by excluding the rest of it, and even if IBM don't feel like responding my later points, Slashdot could have re-added them before publishing the responses.
I really think these are two entirely separate issues. Our support of the Open Source movement is based on the belief that with certain technologies, such as Linux, innovation can be spurred through collaboration and the free exchange of ideas. Open Source works on the basic premise of constant change, evolution and improvement of the code by the community.
It is interesting to note that IBM does not believe that collaboration and free exchange of ideas are good ideas in general (especially in light of image they are trying to uphold), but that being beside the point so I won't linger on it.
On the other hand, our involvement with efforts such as CPRM and SDMI respects the right that some content providers have to protect their intellectual assets if they choose to do so. Technical protection measures are an important way to provide that protection. The content that would be protected here -- most likely music, video and other art forms -- is unlike open source code in that it was is not designed to be modified by the masses or freely distributed.
Regardless of goal at hand, CPRM and SDMI are both software mesaures. They function by the software on my computer acting against my interest on behalf of a copyright holder. Software that is open for the user to study and change, and software that acts against him in order to control his actions, are contradicitory and not the slightest bit independent.
CPRM and SDMI act to "respect the rights" of some "cotent providers" by suppressing the very freedoms that Free and open software grant, and suppress the effects of innovation that those freedoms grant us. IBM must know that it is total bullshit to claim that they are seperate or can coexist as philosophies.
(By the way, CPRM is open -- the cipher and algorithms, along with sample code -- are published.)
Oh, so you mean that should I buy a computer that has been infected with IBM CPRM technology, I will be able to modify to my own liking the CPRM code in it. I'm so sorry I didn't understand that [/deep dripping sarcasm].
For us, what it comes down to is supporting the rights of all content creators to make their own choice. If you want to distribute your intellectual property openly and freely, that's great and we'll support you. As you know, not every software vendor is willing to make that commitment. And if you're an individual or organization that wants or needs to protect your digital content, we will develop solutions that work for you while offering maximum value and ease of use to consumers and helping to create an environment where all Internet content providers coexist peacefully.
Except that the people to whoom you are pushing the computers implementing the "solutions that offer the maximum value for [content providers]" are not individuals and organisations that want it, but those who you are trying ensnare by binding this technology to hardware standards that they do not know to, and often cannot, avoid.
The question is whether IBM is committed to, via free and open software, allow users to regain the freedom of control over their own computers that have been robbed of them at the hands of Microsoft, or if IBM is committed to finally and irrevocably take away that control in order to befenfite those who would seek gain the maximum value from your consumers. In a way, I feel you just answered it.
right -- after using lm_sensors, you will hang in the bios the next time you boot, nothing works, not even POST.
Just be *very* sure you stay away from the lm_sensors package. Using that on a thinkpad will turn it into an unbootable doorstop. There is a KDE package that uses lm_sensors (sorry -- don't recall the name -- I don't use KDE). The issue is that lm_sensors accesses (reads!) the BIOS data (some of which is live -- hence the sensors name...), causing a series of events that destroy the BIOS data to such an extent that the system will not boot using any know means. A motherboard replacement is the only known cure. The bug is in the BIOS, btw, not lm_sensors, based on the idea that reading data should not alter it.
The linux-thinkpad users have been trying to get this resolved for some time (more than a year, IIRC), and (AFAIK) still no fix, even for newer systems, let alone older ones.
There are a few rough edges yet to be worked out.
Okay, I accept that these labels are only applicable from the public, or the Free software community's perspective. IBM is, of course, consistently self interested. When I say that IBM does things which are unethical, I refer to utilitarian ethics; although I'm not actually a utilitarian myself, I don't think there is another ethical framework which has the same legitimacy in discussions of public policy.
Many people defened the "free market" economy because they claim that it has many desirable utilitarian properties. Those people tend to ignore the distorting economic effects of power. When a large corporation actively lobbies for changes in, for example, IP laws, which are clearly contrary to the public interest, it is our responsibility as informed citizens to point that out to them (in the politest possible way, of course ;).
Fixing copyright
The more inappropriate aspect of this response is that it adopts the language of property rights with respect to copyright and patents - the view that monopolies in information are somehow natural, god given things.
This is a deeply problematic view of copyright and patent law, one which was explicity ruled out in various common law jurisdictions by virtue of Donaldson v. Becket (1774) and the US Constitution.
A more reasonable and modern approach is to regard IP laws as economic instruments which must balance the public interest in incentives with the public interest in widespread distribution. The Free Software movement (and the more general anti-IP sentiment on the internet) is a result of the fact that technology has shifted this balance - the public interest dictates that copyright and patent laws ought to be weaker, to utilise the distributional possibilities of the net. In this context, IBM's actions can be seen to be more unethical and inconsistent.
Of course, expecting the average copyright lawyer, let alone IBM marketing, to acknowledge this, is rather unrealisitic. :)
BTW, for further reading, see RMS' artcile Re-evaluating copyright: the public must prevail, William Fisher's Theories of Intellectual Property, or A Philosophy of Intellectual Property by Peter Drahos.
Fixing copyright
Unlucky for us, IBM stands to make plenty of money with CPRM, so they will support it.
On the positive side of that, at least CPRM itself is open so at least we will be able to interoperate with it if we want.
What it boils down to is that we need to destroy any demand for CPRM, and that needs to be done by making sure no one buys CPRM "protected" products.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
IBM's commitment to Linux goes no further - their laptops start at $999, but their Linux laptops start at around $3400. Hmmm, does a Linux license cost $2401, or what?
There must be some reason that no major commodity hardware vendor is willing to ship a low-cost MS free system. After all, it would be MS they are undercutting, not themselves. Hmmmm. Hmmmmmm.
There's an interesting article in today's New York Times, indicating that there's a reluctance to sue MS over its abuse of monopoly power, err, because it's a bad idea to offend the monopoly power... Do you think...?
mt
If they are really supporting the movement then they should be willing to stand up and take a stand.
:)
and painting on sidewalks is just not enough
--- I hate my sig
And how does this matter?
As long as they are helping us, they can use whatever OS they like, and if they stop help us, they still can use whatever OS they like. I just can't see how it would matter in any way?
http://www.millnet.se/ GO/U d- s+:+ a C++ UL++++ P- L+++ E W+++ N+ w++ M-- PE+ t+ X++
well... as long va java(enterprise edition) does not yet exist on linux.. we can't change :( although a LOT of ppl here would love to..
I was an avid OS/2 user for years, and would still be if it weren't for the general lack of individual user (as opposed to corporate) support. But I still have not seen anything that comes close to matching the functionality of PM on Linux.
I believe this would not only be an excellent move for IBM to port this for PR reasons, but it would also give me the functionality that I (and many other OS/2 users) have missed under Linux.
Karma: Marginal (mostly due to the border around the website)
I also have an IBM think pad A21M at work, and I'm loving it. I have it set to dual boot, Win2k and Linux. I use Red Hat 7.1 from home, and win2k here at work because I have to :( But, everything amazing worked on the first try, it didn't take any special configurations to get my X desktop or sound working.
He meant $1 billion managing the ripoff of apache, I mean, development of websphere.
when was the last time a content provider had any say in selling their copyright to a distributor Why don't you try and publish your own book or sell your own record or show your own movie. Don't tell me about "indie" film producers or record labels either. The word is "subsidiary".
You're not quite right about CPRM being open. In order to get the specs, you need to have them mailed to you. This is free of charge, but you cannot download them at all.
AND, part of the cipher involves a 256 byte "secret number" which can only be obtained if you sign a license agreement. Sounds REALLY open to me.
The question specifically addressed image, in the light of Microsoft's PR attacks. Not total investment. That is preaching to the converted. It does not help counteract the deliberate falsehoods which Microsoft is spreading.
And he totally evaded question 6, the crux of which was "Will IBM's contributions to open source projects include these patentable ideas..." Are you saying that given sufficient community interest you would give up the chance to patent something so it can be freely used in open source code?
That assumes that the maker left the capability for 'unathorized users' (meaning the legal owner) to upload fresh firmware. If they did, the content protection scheme is a joke; merely security through obscurity. If they took content protection seriously, and only allowed cryptographically signed firmware to upload, it's quite possible that the scheme would never be cracked.
In effect, you are hoping that the hardware makers will provide the illusion of content protection, lasting long enough to entice 'content producers' to our platform. That might actually work.
What's more, according to IBM employees I know personally, IBMers who work with Linux have to attend a seminar that explains the GPL and warns them against contaminating the company's other code with GPLed code.
This suggests that IBM knows what it's doing. It is giving lip service to Linux and other GPLed software so as to ride the Linux PR wave, but is wisely using code that's licensed in a more business-friendly manner internally so as to avoid the GPL's "poison pill." (Did you know that the OS/2 TCP/IP stack shows the "fingerprint" of the Net/2 release of BSD?) IBM is clearly taking great pains not to allow the confiscatory provisions of the GPL to cause it to forfeit its intellectual property, while at the same time taking advantage of the Linux "buzz."
Mr. Handy's silence about BSD also suggests that IBM, like many companies, is using BSD as a "secret weapon" -- something that's seldom discussed publicly but which provides a big edge.
This is all understandable, but it's a shame. IBM and Mr. Handy really should give the BSDs the credit they deserve.
--Brett Glass
Jack Handey Tells What's Up With IBM and Linux
1) Hypocrisy?
by Hobbex
How can IBM reconcile its spoken commitment to Linux and Free software software with its center-stage activity in projects like CPRM on harddisks and SDMI for music?
Handey:
At first I thought, if I were Superman, a perfect secret identity would be "Clark Kent, Dentist," because you could save money on tooth X-rays. But then I thought, if a patient said, "How's my back tooth?" and you just looked at it with your X-ray vision and said, "Oh it's okay," then the patient would probably say, "Aren't you going to take an X-ray, stupid?" and you'd say, "Aw screw you, get outta here," and then he probably wouldn't even pay his bill.
2) IBM + Linux = PPC?
by Xoro
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.
Handey:
One thing kids like is to be tricked. For instance, I was going to take my little nephew to Disneyland, but instead I drove him to an old burned-out warehouse. "Oh, no," I said. "Disneyland burned down." He cried and cried, but I think that deep down, he thought it was a pretty good joke. I started to drive over to the real Disneyland, but it was getting pretty late.
3) Linux vs AIX
by milkmandan9
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 foresee any of the IBM Linux initiatives losing funding if they encroach on AIX market share?
Handey:
If I lived back in the wild west days, instead of carrying a six-gun in my holster, I'd carry a soldering iron. That way, if some smart-aleck cowboy said something like "Hey, look. He's carrying a soldering iron!" and started laughing, and everybody else started laughing, I could just say, "That's right, it's a soldering iron. The soldering iron of justice." Then everybody would get real quiet and ashamed, because they had made fun of the soldering iron of justice, and I could probably hit them up for a free drink.
4) PR
by truthsearch
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?
Handey:
As he points out, people need to realize that content protection and open source are two different things. Even on linux, some things are closed source. For example, early versions of staroffice, applixware, visualroute, etc. If linux is going to targeted by big software companies, they have to make money off of it. And they know they'll make more money off closed source products. Helping to protect copyrights, even though it will annoy the hell out of us, will probably be better in the long run because it brings more companies to the point where they are no longer afraid/unwilling to develop.
;)
(That and the fact that any protected HDD's will have a hacked up firmware patch available a few months later
I am !amused.
The really interesting question was (10), but he dodged this one. I think that this clearly shows where IBM has still problems and does not really know what approach to take...
If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
One thing is loud and clear from Mr. Handy reply to those questions: IBM has no crazy attitude about Linux, Windows or any other OS. Instead, IBM sees the OS just as another opportunity to expand it's business. This is why IBM will always be around while other companies will come-and-go.
---------------
Sig
abbr.
Karma stuck at 50? Add 2-5 inches.. err.. 2-5x Karmas Count to your pen1es.. err.. Karma all naturally and private
It's nice to say 'Linux this' and 'Linux that' but the fact is that inside IBM, there's virtually NO Linux at all. Sounds like a giant PR move to me.
What a great way to see how many IBMers running Linux there are .. :-) Okay - I'll bite.
Sitting in the DB2 development section, I run Linux as my *gasp* desktop OS. I'm not the only one around here either - I can quickly walk down the corridor and put my hands on 4 more Linux machines being used as development desktop OSs without going more than 20 yards. Then there are people who have laptops running Linux. There are Linux servers, Linux regressions machines and Linux test machines. We have people as primary Linux contacts, a Linux User Group.
And funnily enough, the number of machines running Linux seems to be increasing. Lotus Notes runs fine on my Linux desktop (major kudos to the WINE team for that one) so that solves the most critical need which is not available on Linux native. For some reason once released from the Windows-only world, those Windows partitions get cobwebs pretty quickly.
Cheers,
Toby Haynes
Anything I post is strictly my own thoughts and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the opinions of IBM.
IBM had committed to put SmartSuite on OS/2, but after WordPerfect abandoned the platform they seemed to lose interest. They eventually put out a partial implementation, but it was quite incomplete and fairly awful. (Fonts didn't work at all, a chronic OS/2 application problem). They did make SmartSuite/Windows work well in the Windows emulation layer and IBM came to recommend that approach. (I complained about the crummy OS/2 version and they sent me the Windows version to use -- which I rather liked.)
One of the many traps OS/2 ran into was their Windows emulation layer. It was very strong, so that vendors had little motivation to write native software. Alas, it was all too easy for Microsoft to change Windows, and too hard for IBM to keep the emulation working -- especially after Win95 came out. Not the only wound OS/2 suffered of course, but a contributor.
A lesson perhaps for Linux and Windows emulation -- it's a treacherous path to take. If the clientside platform ever became a threat, Microsoft could again change Windows so the emulation layer would break.
john
www.faughnan.com
--
John Faughnan
John Faughnan
jfaughnan@spamcop.net
Agreed -- at least about the pleasure of using the Workplace Shell -- when it worked! Of all the shells I've used, it was my favorite. The implementation was flawed (desynchronization between file structure and shell representation, no ability to uninstall applications, vulnerability to misguided applications, etc) but the ideas were sound.
My memory is unreliable on this, but I believe the shell sprang in part from IBM research labs and that it incorporated some forward thinking about user interfaces and information management. The introduction of the shell in OS/2 Warp was somewhat miraculous, but in retrospect it was probably a bridge too far -- it languished too long with its problems unresolved.
--
John Faughnan
John Faughnan
jfaughnan@spamcop.net
Absolutely right. For a DRM to work, you need some kind of enforcing entity. This would ususally be a player or viewer application. A player has to enforce the rules set forth by the content owner. To do that, it has to prevent a third party from changing those rules. One way to do this is to implement tamper resistant software which handles the interpretation of the DRM rules. Tamper resistancy and Linux don't really work well together because Linux is an open execution environment where you as the developer have lots of ways to figure out what a program is doing.
It is in a way strange that CPRM with its hardware-based securing of content might actually help here. Because you delegate the security mechanism to hardware and don't have to implement them in (easier to hack) software. From a purely technical point of view, CPRM is good for Open Source because it opens the possibility to develop DRM-aware software. But to have technology that enforces weak laws is a different point alltogether...
The key point: you can open source anything you want, but you shouldn't be able to force other people to open source their creations. There is nothing hypocritical about supporting both Open Source software development and copyright protection.
** The opinions expressed here are my own, and do not reflect those of my employers - past, present, or future**
I am interning at IBM for the summer and I wouldn't say that the $1 billion is clearly evident interally, but they do have a clue. I wanted to intern at IBM because of the infusion of money that it was making, and I thought I might get lucky in the infrastructure dept. supporting or developing Linux for their site. They do have some people who have Linux on their desktop, but only as a supplement, most likely because there is no Notes client for Linux. I'm not doing as much Linux work as I'd like, but playing w/ iptables for their new firewalls that are going to run Linux is a whole lot better than debugging some moron's bad C code.
Cheers,
I remember when Win95 was giving me all sorts of trouble on my Thinkpad 365ED, I installed Redhat 6.0. It loaded with no problem, and it was nice to have a usable laptop again. Ever since that experience (back in 1999(?)) I have been thankful to IBM, and I'm glad that they are contributing to Linux. (Also why I continue to use Redhat to this day)
------
Random, useless fact: I type in startx entirely with my left hand.
I would, however, like to hear your take on backing up information to which you have purchased a license to use.
If I purchase a license to use data (or audio) then I want to be able to protect my right to use that data. And in the case of audio, *specifically* that data. Not a lower quality facsimile of it.
Granted, I havent seem the CPRM or DRM standards, and I am making a few assumptions about exactly what it will do and how it will affect me, but I honestly cant see any RM solution not stopping me from doing the afore mentioned things.
It seems to me that they are deeming a backup not fair use (and specifically a backup... we're not talking about freeloading pirates here. Co-incidently, my own music archive is purely ripped from my own CDs, stored in Ogg Vorbis format. It has to be, work would have a fit if I pirated music. (and rightly so)).
Either that, or they're throwing fair use out the proverbial window.
Just curious what you think, and how you justify it.
---
Video meliora proboque deteriora sequor - Ovidius
I find this whole topic a minefield. I've been refining my opinions on it for years and I don't pretend to be clever enough to understand all the issues.
Having said that I gonna dive in... (diving into a minefield - mixed metaphors are fun!Your criticism appears to be that IBM is prepared to promote Linux whilst at the same time not wholly accepting the philosophy which produced it. You feel that because they have put a lot of money into Linux they must automatically adopt a particular view of IP. To do otherwise is "unethical and inconsistent"
But it's only inconsistent if you assume that IBM's motivation in promoting Linux is to promote Free Software. But it's not - it's to take advantage of a business opportunity. IBM are doing what any business does - they've seen an opportunity to make money and they are pursuing it. The 'deal' they've made is to put money and resources into the promotion and development of Linux - in order to reap the reward of increased sales of hardware, services, support and proprietary software.
Ethics are very subjective and IBM seems to have a chequered history but I will say this: Without necessarily adopting the Free Software Philosophy they seem to have behaved responsibly and fairly - giving back to the community and respecting the licensing of Linux.
You'll notice btw that Handy all the way through is very careful to say "Open Source" rather than "Free Software".
Imagine for a second a new non-free OS called Newnix. Imagine that it suddenly becomes popular and begins to pick up serious market share in the server market. But it's new so there's not the availability of compatible hardware, software, services and support. A lot of businesses would seriously consider a major commitment to Newnix if only these things were in place. Serious enough to pay for them. As soon as that happens software, hardware and services businesses will scramble to get involved in Newnix and get a piece of this new pie.
Now do you understand IBM's commitment to Linux? It's not fundamentally different to their commitment to Windows or any other platform.
Finally - and I do realize I've rambled - presumably you object to the fact that they are prepared to use the fruits of others' commitment to Free Software whilst not embracing this themselves. However that's the paradox of Free Software, of some might say, Freedom itself (whatever that is!) - namely that if you are truely committed to it you end up supporting the rights of those who are not.
I work for a company that develops and maintains a commercial application on the IBM AS/400 platform. As far as I can tell, the AS/400 has one reason to exist: to host legacy applications. I don't understand IBM's strategy for Linux on the AS/400. Why would anyone choose to take an extremely expensive, proprietary system, and sacrifice disk space and processors to run Linux when they could get substantially better performance and reliability by running Linux on inexpensive commodity hardware? It seems to me that IBM could be making a huge tactical error by supporting Linux on the AS/400 -- it will expose the AS/400 for what it is -- an overpriced, under performer. Don't misunderstand me -- I'm a huge Linux fan. I run Linux on personal systems at home and my workstation at work. I've replaced a number of Windows servers and offloaded several AS/400 tasks to Linux servers. I just can't imagine any sane motive for running Linux in an LPAR on a pig dog system like an AS/400.
1) Hypocrisy?
by Hobbex
How can IBM reconcile its spoken commitment to Linux and Free software software with its center-stage activity in projects like CPRM on harddisks and SDMI for music?
That's exactly what M$ is trying to do.
To associate Open Source and Free Software with no copyright.
1) Content has nothing to do with OpenSource.
2) OS/FS means that the author want to share its work with everyone, this does not mean that he has given up his rights!
As somebody else said, flamebait-for-IBMers-to-come-out, but.. Of the two boxen on my desk here at work, one is WinNT, the other RH 6.2 (works for me, too lazy to update to 7.x). Add a belkin switch and two mice, stir well and bake at 325. NT for misc biz-related stuff. the Linux for most all internet-related stuff.
So you contend that MS Office is SO great that Sun's office workers' productivity has fallen greatly by not using it? Please.
This is BS. A sufficiently large corporation does NOT need MS applications; there are alternatives such as Lotus, StarOffice, etc. Sun Microsystems doesn't use Intel-based machines at all, and has no MS software. They use Suns (surprise, surprise) running StarOffice. If people try to communicate with them using the latest MS Office formats, they get a rude surprise ("sorry, we don't use MS Office.").
I have a lot of respect for a company that uses its own products instead of a competitors. In the past, this was perfectly normal--only a really badly managed company would use the competition's products when they have their own in-house solution. Somehow things have gotten messed up lately. Witness HP using MS Exchange instead of their own OpenMail (on HP-UX).
see also soup
the animal doesnt even have opposable thumbs, focker!
And I bet if you look inside Sony, you'd find relatively few PS2s on their desktops. You'd also find few PPC machines on IBM's desktops. So what ? As several of the /. queries pointed out, a significant problem with Linux is its relative inadequacy on the desktop - especially with regards to mail and Office-type applications. So what is IBM to do ? MS applications in the corporate world is a reality and IBM would be retarded to adopt other applications just because a tiny portion of their company is working with Linux. The real indicator of whether they "walk the walk" is looking to see whether or not they are contributing significant resources to Linux (they are), and whether they are releasing code to the community (they are) - not whether or not they decide to stupidly force many of their users to use Linux - as Linux stands now.
Here's to a good partnership!
It saddens me, too, that IBM/Lotus are not going to support Linux. I'm mailing Lotus for over a year now, in a four-month-rhythm. I've also talked to some folks of Lotus at the CeBIT. And I always get the same answer: noone wants to use Notes on Linux. And this is simply a lie, as this forum demonstrates. There are a lot of people running Notes with WINE or VMWare, and sure it works with WINE, but there are some drawbacks (e.g. I'm for some reason not able to filter my mail under Linux, but it works fine under Windoze). I think I keep mailing them until they give up finally making a Linux version of Notes :-)
If it's a bug and you've all got Thinkpads, couldn't you try to contrib code to at least have lm_sensors behave differently on them?
...
I mean, it is open source
--- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
The way Microsoft robs users of control is by not enabling them to compete with it on their own merits. IBM has shown that it is willing to work with an open standard, which allows anyone to work with their software, and to compete however it will. It provides users with free choice.
Its as easy as not using the content. The content providers have the right to say, use this license, or dont use my software/content. In the same manner that the open source movement requires that the GPL be propogated down through derivative works. All IBM is doing is providing a means to insure that the license is being followed. Some providers feel safer that way. That in no way forces you to make use of that product. You are still free to use the content found elsewhere, or write your own protection scheme that is more to your liking, and sell all the content creators on it. You can even make it compatible with IBM's open standard.All IBM is doing with this is respecting the rights of IP holders to protect their rights. To phrase it similar to what you said, it provides them(ip holders) the freedom to take control of their own IP which has been robbed from them at the hands of freeloaders. Not everything is free!
You don't have the right to do anything you want with the information that is on your computer simply because it is on your computer. It doesnt work that way. Just like you dont have the right to do whatever you want with a gun simply because its your gun, and you dont have the right to do whatever you want with your car simply because its your car. Your rights end where another persons begin, and that includes IP and copyright.
IBM has made the standard open. If you really want to know exactly what the programs are doing to your computer, its available for you to find out. The fact that it doesnt enable you to do everything and anything does not equate it to robbing you of anything. Nor does it in any awy compare to the way MS screws consumers.
You must remember that others have rights that deserve to be protected as much as your own. IBM is walking a fine line in an attempt to respect those rights as well as your own, and so far looks to be doing a fine job.
-SC
Dave
Alright: who picked the question where someone actually used the term "linux boxen"?
Isn't that the point where the government steps-in and puts you to sleep?
This wasn't just plain terrible, this was fancy terrible. This was terrible with raisins in it. - Dorothy Parker
If you could boot up off the disk, it's unlikely that your BIOS was trashed.
Not Meta-modding due to apathy.
I get really tired of the arguments that the Free Software movement by definition means that all data has to be freely available, whether it be programs, audio or video data. Those mean nasty copyright holders have no right to protect their own product, after all it's just bits, and bits should be free, right?
Please. IBM is completely right on this one; they are simply developing a way for copyright holders to protect their products. "Fair use" says you may make a copy, it doesn't mandate that there must be a quick/easy way to make that copy. For example, you can still make analog copies of protected products, just not digital ones.
If you really want to get upset about something, get upset about the new Macrovision method of "protecting" audio CDs by intentionally damaging the music content...
...that he answers the questions so improbably indefinetly.
You can't get a real statement out this Q&A. I wish they'd asked a few people of the tech department of IBM what they're currently working on and if they have something to do with IBM's Linux initiative.
All they do is push Linux on the server. But the market share on servers is not due to IBM's efforts!
If they really want to help they'd better also support the desktop.
well, we're already investing more than a $1 billion in Linux across the corporation.
IMHO money may talk in some situations, but what the Linux community could use now is someone to do some talking literally. Specifically I see a need to have someone who has some power (IBM Perhaps) to speak up. Every day articles or speeches are released with Microsoft ragging on Open Source and the whole Linux Movement. It would be nice to see a major Linux Supporter (IBM Perhaps) step up and defend the community.
While throwing $1 Billion at the cause is nice, it is also for IBM's bottom line. If they are really supporting the movement then they should be willing to stand up and take a stand.
DocWatson
MessEdUp
#/var/www/v
Not true or at least it wasn't true. I worked for IBM Global Networks for three years (1996-1999) and our group had 12 people and at least half of us ran Linux on intel as our desktop OS. We had IBM token-ring cards in our machines for network access. We supported the then ibm.net, those servers where running AIX (developed pre-Linux). This lasted until we where sold to AT&T, then Linux was kicked out as desktop OS. I found a new job after that. Just my two cents.... Best regards, Rich
It could be very nice to see Lotus Notes (the client side) to be ported to Linux...
And I think it's not so complicated because at work we are still running a version for Solaris 2.5...
So the code for Unix exist and I think you don't need to have a lot of work to make it work under Linux...
Having vmware just for Office and Notes makes me angry...
Please show that you could do better
JY
PS : Sorry about it but it seems you've releases JFS 1.0 a bit too early... if we consider XFS 1.0 which rocks...
I think you're talking out of your hat here. As an IBMer, I see a strong internal commitment to platform-agnostic applications. FYI ... IBM supports Linux as a client platform for users for whom it is appropriate. For those few applications that can't be served up to non-windows users at this time, IBM provides multi-user Windows (Citrix Metaframe / Microsoft Terminal Services). We're not all the way there yet, but I see progress every quarter.
I haven't seen any company with as much cross-platform commitment as IBM internally. I think they're walking the walk in addition to talking the talk.
Cheers,
Rob Witte
IT Architect
IBM Global Services
"Good design is just clear thinking made visible."