Slashdot Mirror
IBM's Linux Upgrade Roadmap
petrus4 writes "IBM have put together a nine-part series on upgrading from various incarnations of Windows (NT in particular) to Linux. Although it's mainly aimed at corporate customers, it's a good read, and could help the Linux advocacy effort in general."
Am I the only one who gets a tingly feeling deep inside when I read about IBM and linux? It just feels so nice to be backed by a mountain of hard cold cash ^_^
Do they answer how to buy IBM computers without being forced to also buy a preinstalled Windows? Do they answer why they still "recommend Windows XP Professional" for their laptops? Do they answer where to get Linux support for their hardware - including wlan, power management etc.?
Information like this has been needed for a long time, there are plenty of HowTo's and Man pages around, but not much information to help with the actual transfer from Windows to Linux. Good job IBM.
1. Buy any machine equipped with an IBM Travelstar or Deskstar Hard drive.
2. Install Windows OS and any related applications
3. After the IBM drive crashes and destroys your data (6 to 8 mos), you can install Linux without worrying about prior data.
I get that same warm, tingly feeling inside as did the members of Team OS/2 in the old days.
First point on roadmap.
Change businessmodel from:
1: Do stuff.
2: sell it.
3: Profit!
To:
1: Do stuff.
2: Give it away for free.
3: Hmmm.....
So if IBM is now going to be using Suse, does this mean that the Blue Linux rumor is bogus?
Speaking as a Linux user inside IBM, I always took the view that the Blue Linux rumour was bogus, or at least misleading. There is linux software flowing around the internals of IBM - plenty of it. And we do have various packages nicely wrapped up in RPMs that aren't available outside IBM (Lotus Notes 6.51 running on a standard WINE base springs immediately to mind). However, an internal distribution is a far cry from launching an external distro. That's not to say it will never happen. Just it doesn't look likely imminently.
... and yes, my sig DOES apply here. I'm not an IBM spokesman reading some approved script.
Cheers,
Toby Haynes
Anything I post is strictly my own thoughts and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the opinions of IBM.
almost every time someone mentions nt to linux data migration, i mention that if someone pays me money, i'll do the work.
r yone-we-send-documents-to-can't-read-them fees could instead pay me to do the development work on exchange and nt domains compatibility - and then NEVER HAVE TO PAY THEM AGAIN.
the migration tools for nt 4 style domains would take about 2 to 3 weeks to do: most of the work has already been done, it's a matter of documenting it, checking it and making it easier to use.
the open source migration tools for nt 5 (aka w2k) style domains would take a bit longer: a few months, at most, though, as various efforts (e.g. heimdal) are already underway.
the open source migration tools for exchange, now _that's_ a challenge, requiring about twelve to eighteen man-months of work to get somewhere.
i know someone who has done most of the work already, in his spare time: it's proprietary but if an open source exchange project was to seriously take off, i know he'd consider releasing some of his code to 1) help out 2) make sure _his_ copyright notices are at the top of the files, because in open source just as in the proprietary world, the _first_ person to release is the one that tends to take off, not the best.
ironically, just ONE company with more than one hundred employees that will be looking to pay microsoft's next set of exorbitant upgrade-because-everyone-else-has-and-oh-look-eve
I have used things like this in the past from companies like RedHat abd Mandrake to convince people that Linux is not "only for nerds" and "too hard". Now that IBM has this, it is perceived as having come from a third party, as IBM still is not thought of as a "Linux Company". This will likely help in my fight to get Linux on my corporate desktops. Go IBM!
bash: rtfm: command not found
To start with, because the interface is so similar, plus "Hey it's just Windows!" comments from superiors means that few are taking the time to learn the intricate differences. (such as permissions and account handling)
Then you get the broken programs.
Then you get the boss who has [what he calls] critical data in an older version of Access that you must now move to [new] Access, which seems to be impossible in certain (read many) cases.
Or, I can implement an IBM-driven Linux-based solution that would force superiors to treat it differently, plus I would have more control over whether or not to continue on the upgrade path to future versions. Microsoft doesn't give me that. To stay secure, even using their loose definition, means continually upgrading, breaking software, data, and perceptions all the while sending them more money.
Oh, how I wanted to get out of that cycle at my last job. Now, I might be stuck implementing it, but at least I'm not responsible for the mess my superiors make trying to fall in line behind Microsoft.
Kudos to IBM for making it reasonably easy to know what's in store for those trying to get away from Microsoft.
"Are you on some kind of medication?"
"No"
"Well, you should be."
--Bean
The current business model using Windows is:
1. Do stuff
2. Report plenty of bugs, RFEs to MS for free
3. Pay annual licensing fees to MS
3a. Hope that Microsoft won't screw you by making changes to their s/w that help their bottom line but hurt you
4. Hope enough money is left over from your core business
With OSS s/w, this becomes
1. Do stuff
2. Report plenty of bugs, RFEs to OSS project (occasionally fix/implement one) for free
3. Make profit from your core business
In both cases, you do free work for other people, but with OSS, all the free work is aggregated and you don't pay for it over and over again. With MS, you end up paying for the same piece of software and for the volunteer work of others and yourself not just once, but over and over again. Furthermore, with MS and other commercial s/w vendors, you constantly run the risk that they will screw you by discontinuing or changing products you depend on, and you have no recourse.
The business case for OSS is easy to make: OSS greatly reduces risks and cost of ownership. OSS isn't without any costs, but it is cheaper on balance.
Note that OSS is a business model and money saver for the actual end users, comapnies whose business is not the creation of the OSS itself, but something else. Founding a s/w company that creates OSS and makes money from it is, as you yourself observe, a long shot and only works rarely. And that's OK.
At Novell's Brainshare conference this week they demoed a new migration tool which saved all the user's documents and application settings, wiped the drive, installed SuSE, configured all the apps for the user (Outlook settings map to Evolution, IE bookmarks saved in Epiphany etc) all in the space of 5 minutes or so.
At the moment it looks like a pretty custom job, but I can definitely see a generic tool being in the works.
-Mark