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/.
"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.
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.
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? ...
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.
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 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'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.
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.
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?
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.
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
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
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.
No.
If you read the responses carefully, you'll note they take the same basic tack as Dell does on Linux.
That is, and I paraphrase,
IMHO, that is about as strong a statement of support you could expect under the circumstances.
IBM, and everyone else for that matter, would love nothing more than to be out from under the thumb of Microsoft. But, the reality is that IBM sells a heck of lot of hardware that is pre-installed with MS software (just as does Dell and a few other OEMs). IBM's relationship with Microsoft depends on them not angering them beyond a certain point. IBM can go further than any other large company in this regard, since they derive plenty of revenue from other OS's and service contracts.
Dell is much more beholden to Redmond, so you find its support of Linux tempered even further than IBM's. Interviews with Dell executives have them making statements about
You would not see even this degree of courage if it weren't for the anti-trust pressure that is being applied to MS over the last few years.
IBM's support of Linux means a lot to me. I think it really has helped them to slough off the image of being a ponderous dinosaur and tuned into the cutting edge of innovation. Their participation in open source projects is a different and a refreshing approach compared to what I was accustomed to get from them as few as 5 years ago. Back then, the IBM attitude was a lot more like the MS attitude is now: "we're the best, we know better, and when we release "blah" it will be the Better True IBM Way."
The only problem was that, whatever it was that was released, it was needlessly complicated and departed so much from the standard that it required users to surmount needless learning curves (whaddya mean I hafta look fer stuff in /usr/lpp/bin?) Kind of like kerberos and active directory authentication, if you know what I mean.
IBM's tempered response to some of these questions I chalk up to the reality of business conditions more than anything else.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
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.
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.
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 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.
Here's to a good partnership!