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?
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.
Or maybe one on how they're "Thinking Differently" now?
Let's see something new!
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.
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.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.
IBM+MS | SCO+LINUX ----> SCO-LINUX+MS | IBM+LINUX-MS
net: IBM+LINUX | SCO+MS
see? it all balances out!
Esoteric reference.
... 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 !
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 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.
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.
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.
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
>>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.