Slashdot Mirror
Where Will IBM Drop Windows?
TurboProp writes "An article by the Associated Press on Friday (1/09/2004) Says that IBM has plans to abandon Microsoft operating systems on it's internal desktops by the end of 2005. The news originated from an internal IBM memo published by the Inquirer, a British technology news site. Further stories from the Inquirer, indicate that IBM May already have begun dumping windows. While this all bodes well for Linux users, and would seem to be a good PR move for IBM, executives at IBM seem to be trying frantically to put a much milder spin on the story. They say that the memo was taken out of context. I really can't imagine why they wouldn't be posting it on billboards."
...that SCO cut them a great deal on Linux desktop licenses, and IBM just couldn't refuse!
Is that they do it at the prom and it is really embarassing for Microsoft.
Heh... I misread that headline as: "Where Did IBM leave OS/2?"
Not sure why IBm is pussyfooting arond on this one either, unless it's to make sure they don't piss off Microsoft so they'll be penalized in the retail or business support sector. Who knows why they're pussyfooting around with this.
They should have done that when they launched OS Warp almost 10 years ago - instead, they pre-installed Windows everywhere - from their retail machines to their own network. OS2 Warp was technologically speaking more advanced than other flavors of Windows of the time.
What were they thinking???
..as would any organisation. No matter how much we might want them to get rid of Windows, they will only do so in areas it makes sense to do so.
In all likelihood, I would suspect that the vast majority of their servers already run Linux... Domino runs on Linux (and has for a while), and most of their webservers are likely to run Linux.
However, while desktops may get replaced, I would think that the engineers would be a prime target for Linux desktops well before, say, secretaries. But I wouldn't think it impossible that "where appropriate" will include Ms. Jane Q. Secretary in another year or two...
libertarianswag.com
First off, they won't be dropping it on their desktop or laptop lines anytime soon, so consumers can feel safe IBM is not abandoning them; Windows has a huge stake in IBM's business. However, it wouldn't surprise me to see IBM begin to try a move to desktops among their own company; however, I can state for fact this is nowhere near the implementation stage, there are a lot of barriers before this will become full-fledged across the number. IBM is too big a player to abandon Windows fully, but they may be making a little bit of a political statement in full support of their desktop, especially in light of the SCO case. IBM has their hands in so many honey pots, there should be no worries that the next ThinkPad you will get will be Linux-only.
Enjoy their linux commerical here.
Yep!
AC
I remember when it was Multimedia. Now it's open source. So why are we celebrating that IBM is using new hype words to motivate its workers?
So what about their past sins?
They were all over the TV during last night's NFL playoff game...
www.ibm.com/open
I really can't imagine why they wouldn't be posting it on billboards.
IBM does *billions* of dollars of business selling Windows systems, and this declaration would be tantamount to throwing that all away.
The first rule for growing a business is to preserve the existing business above all else. Then you can figure out a way to obtain new business opprtunistically with an alternative offering.
Even if they only have one or two divisions or sub-divisions running on it, they will find out EXACTLY what the benefits and deficiencies are.
It's easier to sell something to someone if you already use and prefer the product.
If IBM drops Windows and adopts a Linux desktop, they're no longer tied to the x86 architecture. Of course, all the machines they have will still be useful, but what chip does IBM design and fabricate?
PowerPC
Now, I don't expect anything to happen immediately, but with the 970 aimed firmly at the desktop market, having a Linux desktop sure would make hardware migration a lot simpler--essentially transparent to the end-user...
There are two reasons why IBM would be juditious in how public they make this. The first big reason is IBM and M$ have a strained relationship to say the least. The big bit of control M$ uses to manipulate PC vendors to do their will is windows and office licensing. Even if you are IBM or Dell if M$ decides to pull your dirt cheap licensing of windows and office and make you pay like they do all the little people your bottom line just got crushed. IBM most likely has no interest in seeing one of there cash crops get killed and knows M$ would tolerate misbehaivor from them least of all their big partners. The seccond reason is IBMs server business is becoming more and more dependant on Linux and its related technologies. Even though desktop and server Linux tech are not always related, IE what is good for a big server is not always good on my PC and the other way around, and sometimes the same thing is good on both, a failure is a failure. If they have to back pedal and go to windows again for any reason its a failure for Linux and PHBs will hear about it. The conversation will go like this.
"We want to sell you this Linux server."
"I heared you guys tried Linux and had to swich back, why would I want to go through that."
"No we use Linux on lots of server systems its desktops that we had to go back to windows for."
"So windows works better then I want a windows server!"
"No Linux is a better server OS most of the time."
"I am calling HP bye."
If I was IBM I would much rather make the swich under the radar incase things don't work out and then tell the world what a great success the swich has been if it does. If not then it never happend.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
My company uses two IBM-owned Windows-based products: Lotus Notes and Clearcase. (Yes, it is appropriate to feel sorry for me now) Will IBM continue to develop and support these products for Windows? Certainly. But will IBM but less priority on those products now that they're almost certainly not going to be using them in-house to the same degree? It's possible.
My company and many others don't want to hear that IBM is de-prioritizing their Windows products, and that's why IBM isn't making such a big deal out of this.
I'm still lusting after the Mail implentation that was recently on /. - more stuff like that, all over Linux, and I might be convinced.
IBM is dropping Windows because it is a good business move not as a gimmick. They are not trying to impress Slashdot or open themselves up to abuse.
IBM is simply too big to not sell Windows so they don't want to make this rude. IBM needs to make money from the whole market to support IBM. They do not want the more childish Linux Element posting to the web every time they see a non Linux machine in the hands of one of their reps.
The move is hugely important because it will help them hammer out all the kinks in their understanding of the software. It will help them see where business oportunities lie, more than anything else. They will then be in a position to share how they do it with the rest of the world.
They are not doing it to insult Microsoft. They are doing it because they have more control and bigger margins when they sell Linux.
IBM will run _all_ prevalent operating systems as long as there is an IBM. They are just too big not to.
LS
I believe this was taken out of context.
IBM is a thousand companies within another. Each with seperate financials, goals, etc, etc...
This memo was issues to a select number of small groups within the company and was not indicitive of a company wide shift.
It is very simple, they actually want it both ways. They want to play up the fact that they are moving to Linux, but make it clear they are not abandoning Windows. Since they still sell Windows and sell consulting services for Windows customers, they want to make it clear they aren't biased against Windows if that is what the customer wants.
Not only did you not read the fucking article, you didnt even read the fucking POST! This is on *internal* IBM machines! Not the stuff they sell to customers!! Idiot.
"I really can't imagine why they wouldn't be posting it on billboards."
Likely because outside of the slashdot / computer professional crowd, Linux is either unknown, looked at skeptically, seen as an outsider, and/or seen as a tool solely for the computer geek. You all may view Linux favorably, but the OS still has a long, long way to go before the common consumer truly embraces it.
Besides, the move away from Windows only affects employee laptops and workstations. Why would most of the rest of the world care?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The dumpster would seemto be the obvious answer. Although that could backfire when the rest of the garbage gets up and walks out of the dump in protest.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
I agree with the comment that IBM is soft-pedaling the memo to avoid public timelines. This would be a huge transition, and needs to be taken at its own pace. Good luck, Big Blue.
This is my post. There are many others like it. If you don't like what you read here, go try one of the others.
If the average person hasn't heard of Linux up until now, they have been getting more familiar with it in the last couple of weeks. At least football fans have.
Why? Those IBM commercials with Linux as the "adopted kid" that have been running during the NFL playoffs. There have been other commercials mentioning Linux in the past couple of years (from IBM and Dell), but this is the first one that emphasises it.
Any commercial that features such diverse talents as 95-year-old ex-UCLA baseketball coach John Wooden, "Laverne & Shirley" star Penny Marshall, and Muhammad Ali all in the same ad, is pretty good.
BTW, where was Linus in all this? Shouldn't he be involved in these somehow?
Microsoft's VP of Customer Service is Helen Waite. If you are having problems with their products go to Helen Waite.
The problem is that Microsoft has now chosen to drop all versions of Windows previous to Windows ME, including NT version 4. Because Windows is a closed source operating system, this means that if a serious security breach is now discovered in these versions of Windows, Microsoft's attitude is "tough - upgrade". The problem is that many Businesses use these older versions of Windows, because they work. They are not interested in using the latest version of Office, as they have no need for the use of the new features provided, or even may have a compatibility issue they cannot resolve.
Sure, Linux systems cost money to operate, but they tend to be more secure, as the system administrators must be better trained. Overall, huge long term savings can be made by using an operating system that can be maintained without a serious upgrade every 3 years as the company that sold the operating system decides not to support it. Anyway, many companies outsource their IT don't they?
The other advantage is that there is more profit. By offering to support an operating system by up to 10 years, the supplier can charge more, as the customer will save money, as they don't need to spend money on re-training or new hardware. By adopting Linux across the business, IBM can show their customers how it can be done. Remember, that many older versions of Windows software can be made to run on Linux through the use of WINE. Yes, there will be some re-training, but not as much as the operating system will be better tailored to the customers needs.
The bottom line is that IBM is re-adopting the old white shirt principle. This is where systems were designed to meet customer's needs, not enforce new requirements on customers. Remember, the customer is always right.
I was doing an OEM deal for my employer at Research Tringle Park (RTP) near Raleigh North Carolina with IBM. RTP's entire server development group works out of RTP, I was shown off the blade center before it was functional etc. Oddly enough! No ethernet. Still token-ring, why give up on your own technology?! This great resource center of hard work and tech invention was most likely the ugliest most run-down facility one could possibly expect. I would say the time frame for an ENTIRE move from Microsoft desktops INTERNALLY is sometime after 2005.
IBM+MS | SCO+LINUX ----> SCO-LINUX+MS | IBM+LINUX-MS
net: IBM+LINUX | SCO+MS
see? it all balances out!
Esoteric reference.
From the comment:
Just a quick note that we all should remember:- It's = it is (contraction)
- its = possessive of it (possessive)
Try to remember it in this fashion: If you know the sex, use the apostrophe (think phallic). If not, no apostrophe.It's a rule we can live by ;-)
...tizzyd
... in fact, they do like Israel does: they threaten to go full-opensource just to have a big rebate on their next round of Windows licencing !
My own private, personal interpretation goes like this:
1) IBM is a *very* conservative, slow-moving, large and cautious organization. Even if everyone at IBM decided tomorrow that a switch should be undertaken, and there were no technical/implementaion hiccups, it would take time, lots of it. They have gotten burnt by trying to lead an unwilling maket before, they have not forgotten.
2) The value of the IBM name is affected by people's perception of how well they succeed at an endeavor they undertake.
2) IBM does not have a culture dominated by strong top-down directive-based management (there are exceptions of course). Rather, a lot of management directives are "sold to" subordinates, achieving buy-in, at least to some degree. Viewed in light of this, it is reasonable to interpret the note at face-value: a challenge to see if it can be done or at least explored, issues investigated, etc...
3) No one really *knows* with certainty how easy it will be to move 300,000 people (90% of whom are not OS/software technical) over to linux: how many little unforseen gotchas will pop up; least of all high-level managers who are paid to think about strategic rather than tactical issues. More to the point, no one know with certainty what the adoption-percentage vs. time curve will look like or at what level it will saturate (how long it will take, what the final % will be). Many of the details have yet to be fully fleshed out or even listed, so predicting a time-line at this point is risky at best.
Given these points, I think that IBM is merely trying to manage (perhaps unreasonable) expectations to guard against a backlash if on 01Jan06 they only have x% of their people migrated over, or worse if there are issues that pop up that push it out further, or make it unreasonable at this time. We may all have opinions about the likelyhood of those things, but we don't actually *know*, and neither do the IBM execs. See #1,2 above.
..actions speak louder than words?
Maybe IBM realise that what they actually do counts for much more than whatever they announce loudly in a press release, or whatever "spin" they put on the news as reported by somebody else.
They get the benefit of guerilla advertising passed on the grapevine, and would presumably suffer *lots* less embarassment in the event of unexpected problems with deployment.
Ian
Since IBM makes its money from its Global Services department, and since Global Services writes software for other companies, and since almost all companies use Windows, IBM needs to keep Windows on their engineers systems so their engineers can keep writing software for other companies. So no, IBM is not dropping windows. Ever.
I haven't seen anyone mention this, but one sure reason IBM is backing off from announcing that they are going to stop using windows is that they don't want to piss off Microsoft.
Remember that IBM is supplying the chips for the next X-Box. It probably isn't too late for Microsoft to switch to someone else. THey piss off Microsoft by braggin that they aren't using Windows any more and that would certainly make Microsoft start looking for alternatives.
http://www.popularculturegaming.com -- my blog about the culture of videogame players
Remember tho, it's all about profit.
G5 sales are a nice feather in IBM's cap, but Apple makes the money when a G5 goes over the counter. The R&D is more what IBM is interested in, they get to use lessons learned in their POWER line.
That's where they'd like to be making their money, in the high-margin low-quantity areas like server clusters and high availability.
Maybe someone here who's read IBM's SEC filings can tell us where their money actually comes from.. The PC business must move a lot of machines, but I'm forced to wonder if there's any profit in it at all, the market being as cutthroat as it is.
Heh, and don't forget to include Java as a platform IBM can fall back on, they've put a lot into WebSphere.
Will they actually be dropping Windows, or are they simply fishing for better pricing from Microsoft, like India, Israel, et al?
Will IBM start selling notebooks without the microsoft tax too? And with fully linux compatible hardware?
True genius is grasping a situation like a peice of fruit, and peircing it just right so that it drains dry.
Backlash
Microsoft shouldn't be expected to take something like this lying down. You can expect the folks in Redmond to dig into their bag of dirty marketing agreement tricks and find a way to punish IBM. Things like not giving them preferential pricing for installed Microsoft software unless IBM publicly renounces use of Linux on internel systems, that sort of thing.
Microsoft wasn't able to force IBM out of the OS and applications market by offering technically superior products; they did it by using their ability to set prices for their own products to punish anyone who dared to offer an alternative to Redmond. IBM can expect a price increase on Microsoft products (both those for internal use and for re-sale) as soon as they drop licenses for Microsoft products internally.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Ben
IBM thinks about IBM first
1) the p970
this chip is a major contender, with apple helping with distribution and a probable p970 blade this year. they will need an os that can really use the chip (linux)
2) if you buy an IBM desktop your an idiot.
IBM is known for their servers (big iron) they don't really care about their small range servers they make their money on pseries and mainframes.
3) if linux can be specialized and modified for easily deployable office appliances and big servers than this could make IBM allot of money.
4) a linux version of OS IBM,
What if linux came out with a proprietary desktop, that could compete with sun, run linux and leverage the OSS movement. apple made that work so why not IBM think about it. would you pay 100$ for a linux based desktop with IBM backing it, has all the apps you need, and has a commercial interface.
This makes sense if you look at where IBM really makes its money, not desktops, not small servers, but the big guys.
If IBM declared war on King Bill, they'd face Least Favored Nation licensing terms for Windows (maybe even an embargo), which would hurt their ability to compete with HPaq, Dell, and Gateway. While many /.ers would love to see IBM boxes shipping without the Windows tax added into the price, mainstream corporate purchasers would be far less happy, and the SOHO market - many of whom actually think of MS as the swell people who "innovated" all these nifty technological geegaws - would come to regard IBM as a freakish Big Bad Blue monster.
WHat I heard at work was the contract with MS is up for renewal and MS practically doubled the price. So IBM is threatening going with Linux to get MS to drop the price.
IBM makes a lot from selling Windows products and supporting Windows so they don't want to rock the boat too much with MS. So they are in a tough position balancing their need to make money on Windows and Linux.
"While I'm far from an MS fanboi, Linux isn't ready to take the place of Windows on the desktop."
You don't get it, do you? IBM will invest tons of money into making their own version of Linux one hell of a corporate desktop.
It's in their interest and it's in their customer's interest. I can think of few organizations the size of IBM who will not review their own desktop strategy after seeing Big Blue making the move.
And different from OS/2 way long time ago, this time the alternative to Microsoft is the talk of the town.
First off, nobody moves 300,000 desktops in one year. You retire maybe 20% per year and refresh them with new machines that can contain a new OS.
Next you have to insure that all of your custom desktop apps are rewritten OR - run under Wine or VM32.
Then you have to create a build and tune it for your network.
Then you have to push all of the legacy apps maintenance to sunset their own apps. You will need to do this for several years unless you plan on migrating entire business divisions at once.
Then and this a BIG thing, you need to train a desktop support infrastructure to maintain it. That includes break/fix, troubleshooting and helpdesk.
And Oh - you also need to develop national language support for all the desktop code, world wide in about 20 different languages including DBCS support and all the supporting documentation.
Increasingly IBM is being mooted as a Linux company. Although I am not aware of an IBM specific distribution. Linux is probably one of IBM's highest sources of revenue.It only makes sense for them to use it internally, it looks better for them if they are using their own products etc.
I wouldnt be surprised if the reason they are not making a big deal about this is due to the impact this may have on their Microsoft revenue stream. Its surely must be a blow to Microsoft that one of the largest tech companies(IBM) is publically ditching microsoft on their internal desktops. My guess is they dont want to harm their non-linux revenue streams , and at the same time avoid any rumbles with redmond.
This also has to be a good thing for the maturing of Linux as a desktop OS. A company such as IBM is going to be able not only to see what problem areas exist with linux as a desktop machine, but due to its commitment to the os will actually be able to input and contributions actually fix some of the issues its internal users will discover.
This is a sound move and one that shows just how strong Linux is becoming, and shows without a doubt that you dont need Microsoft to run your business no matter how large or small.
Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
Where I work, IBM makes loadsamoney on:
* Mainframes, mainframe software and mainframe support. DASD. Backup equipment (ATLs)
* RS6000s of various flavours (pSeries NUMA machines are $$$)
* AS400 still has a strong presence
* WebSphere (and MQ / MQ Integrator), DB2.
* Lotus Notes!
* Services - they charge mountains of cash if you want to outsource something to them. Ask them to tender, and weep. Then pay.
We don't use IBM PCs.
I reckon IBM make most of their cash in low volume / high margin. Linux is probably a way to turn the desktop into high volume / medium margin (support).
Yours Sincerely, Michael.
That was my thought as well... IBM could definately license Apple's operating system. This would be great for both Apple and IBM as Apple could definately dictate the terms for such an agreement and I think IBM would like it just in principle to stick it to Microsoft.
I just wasted your mod points! HA!
Erm.
IBM has never been big on selling software. They are fairly OS agnostic.
They see OSes for what they are: tools to get the job done with the hardware you have. This is why they have such a large girth of OSes that they deal with: MacOS, Linux, AS/400, Windows. They don't give a damn what their customers do with the hardware they purchase from IBM, they just want the customers to be productive with their products.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
I was just thinking about companies (or countries) that cry "Open Source" as a means to get MS discounts. It's a good business strategy, perhaps, but it isn't good for F/OSS. Maybe these companies don't intend it as a bargaining strategy in the beginning; but if MS is able to convince people to renew their contracts with speacial deals it means that F/OSS isn't doing a good job of communicating its benefits (cost being only one factor of this).
I don't really think that IBM is toying around, but I am sure there are many smaller companies that would like to play that game.
Good point. The sites I support have people who depend on macros they inherited / were given by other employees. Some of them are very elaborate, and asking them to rewrite something they have no idea how it was written in the first place is asking a bit much. An asking the IT staff that already has 90+ trouble tickets to handle with some being months old due to number of tickets opened daily plus projects, emergency reports, people walking up and interrupting them with dumb questions, etc, is not practical either.
I.E. an IT infrastructure that is already stretched to its limits buy cost reduction initiatives is not going to learn how to write macros or how to migrate them.
Yes, I am speaking from experience. I get requests like "please install program x on 70 computers in the next couple of days because 70 people are changing jobs, oh, I know you have 87 trouble tickts and IT staff was just moved into its present office and still have stuff to box up and relocate, but this is important!". No warning, no overtime is possible, just somehow make it happen without ignore any of your other responsibilities. Sigh...
I can't afford a sig!
They already committed in Munich. There's no going back. They either believe what they say or they don't take advantage of free software in house. They can't have it both ways.
The chances of failure, by the way, are slim to none.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
I work for IBM. I have never seen a single Macintosh at the company. At first I thought it was strange but I've become used to it. There were some Macs used in advertising departments in several acquisitions but they were all surplussed. IBM was big on OS/2 and now then they switched to Windows 98. Now they use Windows 2000 or XP for the most part. However lots of engineers, developers and researchers use Linux, AIX or Solaris on their desktops. There is even an officially supported version of Red Hat for internal use which comes preconfigured with WINE to run Lotus Notes (the corporate email, calendar and groupware client), MTS (VPN connectivity), a "piece love and Linux" screensaver, ISSI (corporate software distribution and installation software) and SameTime (corporate chat client).
According to the Mac News Network, independent sources put its latest sales figures of desktop systems at around 3.8% market share.
CNet News.com puts Apple's latest (3rd Quarter 2003) market share figures slightly lower: "Apple, meanwhile, saw shipments rise, but not as fast as the market. The company's U.S. market share is now 3 percent, while its worldwide share is below 3 percent."
While it is true that Apple has taken as much as 7% market share in the laptop market of the US in some months (see this MacLinks article) this only translates to 4% worldwide share. And HP is still the world laptop leader.
Apple, despite what you might think, has not significantly improved its market share over the last few years, except in laptops. You could make the argument that they have managed to keep market share from declining (which was the trend up until 1999), but they have failed to translate their new products into market share leadership.
I know it's hard to believe all of this when you get your news from Slashdot posters, but luckily industry analysts don't.
>>They are fairly OS agnostic
Could have fooled me. Watching U.S. football playoffs today, I lost track of the number of IBM Linux commercials. Strangely, I didn't see any IBM MacOS commercials, nor did I see any IBM AS/400 or IBM Windows commercials.
A lot of people like to use the word agnostic as meaning "not supporting one side or the other".
I prefer the version by the guy who most famously brought it to light, Professor Huxley in 1869.
in a nutshell, "we are incapable of knowing"
so if i'm agnostic when in comes to a supreme being, it means that I believe that at this current time, I cannot know if one exists, so I do not bother with such questions.
if i'm agnostic when it comes to operating systems, it means that I believe that with the information present, I cannot know if one is better then the other, so I do not bother with such questions.
IBM isn't stupid, they will give to the customer whatever the customer wants. If that's windows...so be it. But they sure "appear" to be advertising the fact that they know about a "pretty good thing"...and that we may want to know about it too.
That thing is linux.
Agnostic? Could have fooled me.
We run test cases, and check that we get the same results as last time. We do this with all safety related closed source programs, when each new version comes out.
i tt lebit))),dodgy result, correctresult)
There is no way that we could read enough of OO's source to check that it was always telling the truth, we'd still have to test it. And every time we got a new version, we'd have to check all that source code all over again.
I agree, to some extent, that we shouldn't use Excel for safety related stuff, but, not for your reasons. Spreadsheets are inherently uncheckable - any random cell in a 30 Mb sheet could include the following pseudocode
=if(and((somecell>anumber),(somecell(anumber+al
The way I get around that is to write robust cells that handle all exceptions, and copy them down the whole sheet. Also, most of my work is correlation based (ie testing analytical models against real data)- so algorythmic errors would tend to show up.
Matlab would probably be a better bet.
Perhaps a more fundamental question is why do I trust Excel more than OO?
Well, if you see the discussions of OO here they usually claim it is a reasonable Excel substitute - despite its obvious lack of speed, stability and features. If the people making those claims are being honest then they can't be pushing it very hard. Therefore they aren't really qualified to comment.
I'm a bit puzzled by people's problems with various levels of Excel, I use 97 at home and a couple of different versions at work, my sheets and VB seems to work fine on all 3 installations.
There again my stuff is big rather than fancy.