Slashdot Mirror
Kill Bill, IBM vs Microsoft
theodp writes "Though IBM did not invent Linux, does not distribute it and earns nary a penny on it, the computer giant is spending billions in a crusade to make Linux the world's most popular operating system. All told, more than 12,000 IBMers today devote at least part of their time to Linux. To hear IBMers tell it, all this effort is a matter of giving more choices to customers tired of the Microsoft monopoly. But according to Forbes, IBM has a broader agenda--undermining Bill Gates' company in the battle for a new $21 billion market for Web-linked software."
If IBM sells Linux as well as they have OS/2 and VisualAge products, I don't see how Microsoft can lose. IBM has a bad track record of poor marketing strategy. Hopefully they'll finally get it right this time...
A love beyond compare...
With the announcement of IBM's new per user subscription model web applications (last week, was it?), I can see how this is a certain possibility. What better way to promote platform independence than to market an alternate operating system AND show off your new web apps in use on it? Intelligent marketing for Big Blue.
They could do it a lot faster by making the pieces that regular people ( ie not slashdot users ) still miss when they look at the linux desktop.
Microsoft still gets most of its strength from vendor lock based on windows.
Give people an alternative desktop that asks no sacarfice on their part and you kill the giant.
IBM has the resources to do this.
Steve
Sounds like IBM's ROI could be higher if their marketing were smarter. Then again, does it matter to OS if HP gets more Linux business than IBM does?
Remember, IBM is prone to the same sorts of behaviors as Microsoft.
They are not doing this out of kindness, and if IBM can take advantage of the situation down the road, they will.
Just be careful what you wish for, you might just get it.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
If and until IBM adopts Linux across the board themselves, it appears that they're talking out of both sides of their mouth. This came up before, and a number of IBMers said that it was impossible to get off of Microsoft entirely, mostly due to Windows specific apps (such as MS Project)--that may be so, but then how do you reasonably expect the rest of the world to adopt Linux?
And it's bullshit anyways--I understand IBM to have more than a few of their own coders. With enough will, you could rewrite the apps that you need, and then release them back to the OSS community, and the world will indeed thank you for making a migration from MS possible, for themselves as well.
Frankly, it'd be like going to Apple and finding that they all use Vaios. Hint: they don't. They do use MS applications, but they do so on Macs, like Office. And those that don't work on Macs--like the POS system for their retail stores--they port so that they do. What do you think would happen to sales of Macs if the you walked in and saw an IBM POS at the checkout counter at the Apple Store?
IBM has the opportunity and the resources to make their migration from Windows to OSS fodder for whitepapers and PR for decades to come. It's illustrative that they haven't yet, and I think it's a cautionary tale for any other company considering the same move.
--
$tar -xvf
Though IBM did not invent Linux, does not distribute it and earns nary a penny on it
Has IBM ever made money on an operating system? I thought it was generally understood that IBM's business was selling "solutions"; the whole kit - hardware, services, support, customization, consulting.
Does OS400 run on an IBM AS390 mainframe? (serious question!)
An operating system is just part of the package for IBM - they obviously like Linux for small/medium business environments; people are probably less scared of Linux than AIX/OS400/etc, since there is probably more (and cheaper) non-IBM support for Linux based solutions. I guess in that sense, Linux is the Windows of the Unix world as far as support goes - everyone and their dog knows it.
Whether it's running Linux or not, you're still going to pay through the nose for an IBM kit. I honestly can't see how spending money/resources on Linux could be directly aimed at Microsoft any more than if they spent it on AIX. Perhaps Linux just gives them more bang for buck and makes business sense?
But according to Forbes, IBM has a broader agenda...
Yes. This is because IBM is what we call a "company" which exists to make money. Obviously there's a profit motive. This isn't some dark secret.
I'll say this about the article, though, it's pretty good for a Lyons piece. Looks like he finally was able to dig his head out of his ass.
Do you have ESP?
IBM are pro Linux whereas DELL and HP are selling Linux just to keep certain customers happy but are ultimately MS puppies.
"HP recommends Microsoft Windows XP for business" is all too often in adverts for their hardware and they couldn't be more in each other's pockets (HP and MS). But this is business and HP and DELL will do whatever it is that makes them the most money without putting themselves in 'jeopardy'.
Whereas IBM has a history of conflict with MS and are in no way trying to keep in the MS good books. Linux is the perfect vehicle for them to sell services and at the same time disrupt the MS server (and soon desktop) monopoly.
When a company advertises Linux on TV you know they are serious about it.
Good for them.
"IBM's Linux pitch is either stupid or insincere. I think it's a little bit of both. It's not a sensible strategy for IBM in the long run," Zachmann says.
I wonder if we can see any biases in Canopus research?
Linux users are not the only ones harmed by Microsoft's monopoly. IBM is just using Linux as it's weapon against Microsoft. If in the process IBM can be Linux users' weapon against Microsoft, that seems OK to me. Corporations don't just do good things for no profit, it's just that sometimes they might have an agenda thats compatible with ours.
# cat
Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
IBM is using the old Gillete (sic) business model. Give the razor (OS) away for free and make money on the blades (hardware, services). The other, current high-stakes gamble on this age-old business model is the iPod/iTunes store, but that turns the blade/razor model on its head; make little or nothing on the blades/songs and make more per unit on the razor/player.
:)
The article points out that this is a high-risk gamble because IBM's agressive feeding of the OSS movement may be sowing the seeds of their failure. MySQL and JBoss are two excellent examples of how OSS can undercut IBM's own or partners' products. Although only the really large firms can afford in-house experts to boot-strap them in these technologies, those are excatly the cash cows IBM would like to benefit from under this strategy. Are they looking more downmarket?
At the end of the day, succeed or fail, IBM has done a world of good for the anti-MS, pro OSS, pro-Linux movements. I consider that a Good Thing(tm). It would be nice if it worked out for IBM too but, hey as someone who works in those areas, I'll win either way.
"Being Irish, he possessed an abiding sense of tragedy which sustained him through brief episodes of joy." -W. B.
Web-linked software? Linked to what? Probably XAML and Avalon, thats what. IBM's got 50 customers like Munich? They would need 50,000 like that to make Redmond sweat. I know that Microsoft is hated here, but SOMEBODY is spending that money on them. (best quarter ever)
Sooner or later, some smart company is going to understand how Microsoft makes all that damn money, and stop telling themselves that they can win by just changing the rules.
The rules are:
Own the desktop
Provide the best-of-breed apps for that desktop
Own the developers who support that desktop
Own the contracts with those who supply those desktops
Leverage the desktop in every other market
Club competitors over the head with your 50+billion until they run to new markets and stop competing in yours.
Die Rich.
Sure OS/2 has now lost. Simplest reason? It became isolated, just try to find a programmer for OS/2.
But their hardware continues to be very very good. Maybe not the best maybe not the fastest but simply good. Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM is still true. Sure people do get fired for going over budget and buying IBM is a sure way of doing that but there are still enough places that can afford IBM's prices.
They also supply one thing nobody else does. A world wide total solution provider. If you have something to do with computers were ever you are IBM can help you.
And here this IBM ad ends.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
How are all the Linux boosters out there going to feel when you wind up trading one dictator for another?
People want to get rid of Microsoft, or at least greatly decrease their power, so much so (and to a large extent for good reason) that you can't see that IBM will take their place in a heartbeat if they can.
Many of you may be too young to remember the days when "no one ever got fired for buying IBM" because IBM ruled the computing world, flat out. Hell, *I* don't even remember those days personally, but I've heard the stories from people that were there, and IBM was in most ways just as bad as Microsoft. They used pressure sales tactics, made deals with companies that weren't in anyones' best interests but their own, and generally didn't play fair in many instances. They'll pull the same tactics out of their hate and monopolize the world just as surely as Microsoft has, first chance they get.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. IBM is setting themselves up to again prove that cliche true, and so many people don't have a problem with it because Microsoft is the defeated other party.
Be careful what you ask for folks... you just might get it.
If a pion (n-) collides with a proton in the woods & noone is there to hear it, does lamdba decay into the source pa
Easy moderators: The title is meant to be provocative, not an endorsement. Please read further.
It's good IBM is spending the resources to make Linux a more viable competitor to M$. Go IBM Go!
That said, what is it that keeps "Windows" synonymous with "computer" in the minds of the important people (CIOs, managers, grandmas)? Marketing. Remember, it's not Outlook, it's *Microsoft* Outlook. It's not Exchange2003, it's *Microsoft* Exchange2003. Microsoft made an important decision to have their products be inseperable from the Microsoft brand. It's all Microsoft, regardless of what you're using. Got a PC? Unless you built it yourself, you probably have (or had) a "Designed for Windows" sticker on there somewhere. And notice that on those dark cases that Dell, IBM, etc. are using now, what do you see? A big dark box with a colorful sticker. It's like the seal of quality, an assurance that you're getting something easy and familar (actual experience may differ from promise).
What we need, and what IBM's endorsement has not yet brought, is that same "promise of quality" that can be readily understood by anyone and *trusted* by everyone. Face it, with Windows, you know what you're getting, for good or ill. Linux just doesn't have that yet. Maybe it's the fragmentation of distros (Suse likes KDE, Redhat likes Gnome, etc.) As we can see over and over again, people don't buy the superior product, they buy the product they have been convinced into buying.
As an analogy, I offer this from my own life: I was in the store buying groceries. I needed peanut butter for sandwiches. I've been a lifelong JIF user, but JIF is kind of expensive. So I'm checking out the generics and store brands. All a bit cheaper, but not too much, and frankly, I don't know anything about them. They could taste better than JIF, but I don't want to be stuck with an open jar of crap peanut butter if it doesn't. The price isn't much different, so I suck it up and buy the JIF; I just don't want to run the risk of being disappointed. In my mind, JIF is the gold standard and until I am convinced otherwise *by external forces* I am probably not going to change. It's not that I don't want to, it's just that I am afraid of being disappointed and out some $ for a failed experiment.
Thus, I believe we need something, someone, to create that buzz that will usurp the idea that Windows is the good, safe choice. If I can get my grandma to ask for a pc and know that she wants Linux, and not Windows, then I think we will truly have succeeded.
People forget, IBM also has to battle SUN and HP in more lucrative spaces. Having a consistent scalable *nix interface gives them a huge advantage over SUN/HP.
That is one of the main things that is such a misconception with Linux. IBM uses REDHAT LINUX and SUSE. NEITHER of those are "FREE" as in Beer. RedHat Enterprise stuff can cost THOUSANDS of dollars. MORE than any Microsoft OPERATING SYSTEM has EVER cost. You'd think RedHat Enterprise editions came with a free Oracle license or something.
Bzzzt! Sorry, thanks for playing. All of RedHat's software is released under the GPL. What you are bitching about is the support contract.
--fatboy
My current employer used to make loads off of AS/400 and System/36 work, but lately everyone has come to the realization that cheaper hardware and OS'es can do things better, faster and just as reliably. Four years ago the mantra was that "you know an AS/400 will never go down!" But after the latest rounds of PTFs, services packs and OS upgrades have wrecked havoc on working installations people have taken a second glance at that opinion.
The AS/400 is a great piece of hardware, no doubt. Their RAID controllers, massive RISCs and reliable hardware are fantastic for stable servers with 24/7 uptime. But OS/400 just can't take advantage of it. If you want to have hardware abstraction to the point that Sys/36 code from 1960 can still run you just aren't going to milk all the performance points you can out of the hardware.
One of the first things IBM did was get Linux running on an AS/400 (now eSeries). And I'm sure it wasn't a hobby project. They've got the hardcore hardware, now they need to get the industry behind a new common OS so they can sweep their OS/400 legacy under the rug. And good riddance, too.
This may seem a surprising thing to do, but in fact it makes good sense to commoditize the products that complement your own. For IBM, a hardware vendor, that's the OS. For Microsoft, an OS vendor, that's hardware.
For the last twenty years, Microsoft has been extraordinarily successful in commoditizing PC hardware. This has not been good news for IBM (though most of IBM's problems over that time have more to do with a misperception of where the market was going). Now IBM is turning the tables on Microsoft by commoditizing Linux, which if successful, will drive down the price of Windows and make it more affordable to buy computer hardware.
WWJD for a Klondike Bar?
From what I've seen before, IBM has trouble making money off software. Microsoft lives by making money off software. IBM's core business is hardware and consulting services, so perhaps that's where the Linux mantra kicks in.
Unfortunately Sir Bill demonstrates on a daily basis that he is incapable of learning anything, it will take at least a jail sentence before he mends his ways.
It is unfortunate that US law appears not to have the necessary power, if the Monopoly trial had been in the UK, Bill would never have become a Sir, because he, and several others, would have gone to jail for perjury and contempt of court, and maybe some conspiracy charges also.
It's really simple. IBM, having nowhere else to turn, decided to embrace Linux to spite Microsoft.
Nowhere else to turn? IBM had its own robust well respected and trusted version of Unix called AIX. IBM did not need Linux, IBM merely found Linux convenient. Just like the majority of Linux users, they are not motivated by a hatred of Microsoft, they just want a low-cost Unix box and find Linux convenient.
As someone else has pointed out, IBM has figured out that software commoditization is well underway and that soon there won't be any money to be made from COTS--a fact that Microsoft seems either to be oblivious to or afraid to acknowledge. So of course IBM embracing F/OSS is mostly a pragmatic move on their part. I don't see anyone here posting that they think IBM is doing it out of the goodness of their heart.
Most people that I've seen are glad that IBM is supporting F/OSS, but that doesn't mean that they implicitly trust them. Get real.
At the end of the day, you just have to face the fact that foo bar baz.
You can still download all of them for free and not pay the support contracts. Try that with commercial software.
The parent is a troll right? I have to respond anyway...
DB2/400 performance absolutely sucks
Yeah I started believing the propaganda too but then I did some testing of my own. Simple SQL select statements took twice as long using MYSQL as DB2/400. Throw in some scalar functions with a "group by" and MYSQL just rolled over and died. DB2/400 didn't even slow down.
WebSphere performance and management blows
I don't have experience with WebSphere but I do use Apache and Tomcat. The intranet I maintain runs both. Management is just what you would expect for any Apache/Tomcat install. The performance of Tomcat and java servlets hasn't been an issue either.
after the latest rounds of PTFs, services packs and OS upgrades have wrecked havoc on working installations
Are you sure this isn't a personal problem. I've been through three model upgrades, twice as many OS upgrades and countless PTF installs. All came off without a hitch. Total unplanned downtime in 6 years: 45 minutes.
Their RAID controllers, massive RISCs and reliable hardware are fantastic for stable servers with 24/7 uptime. But OS/400 just can't take advantage of it.
I'm not sure what a massive RISC is but that doesn't matter. The reliability of iSeries/AS400s is directly due to OS/400 so I'm not sure how OS/400 isn't taking advantage of all that great hardware. The error handling capabilities of OS/400 are a true work of art. Virtually all cards and devices can be hot swapped. Adding drives and new features (PCI cards) can be done without a reboot. Newer models include standby processors for capacity on demand and fail over capability. And OS/400 can run multiple partitions. Those partitions can be OS/400 or Linux. I just don't understand what you mean by OS/400 just can't take advantage of it
The iSeries really does Rock! To know it is to love it.
IBM has always looked at the long view - the short term stuff never really mattered to IBM.
... In order to be competitive in the consumer PC sales circus, IBM PC-Co signed a deal with MSFT to license the OEM Windows 95... Without that deal, IBM would have to bundle the full retail edition of Windows 95 and it would make their PCs uncompetitive. Unfortunately, the contract had a clause which was the knife which killed OS/2 - IBM could not sell/bundle OS/2 nor could they develop it.
... all the driver support (the old PITA for OS/2 users) is actively worked on by the community (face it, if peripherial vendors wouldn't write an OS/2 driver, they wouldn't work on a Linux driver either)
OS/2's Death was a simple case of smothering the baby because their hands were tied
IBM is basically focusing on what the industry would look like in 10 years time. In the long term, the software is essentially free, consumer hardware is sold at cost (it practically is nowadays) and all the money to be made is in consulting and customizing the software.
The major benefit of something like Linux is a single architecture which works on a wide range of hardware... from simple embedded low-power systems to high performance clusters. It makes it attractive as the skills are the same on all of them - simply the hardware may be tuned easily for the application.
When IBM looks at Linux, they see it as a platform which they can launch themselves from. This was how they treated OS/2 - as a vehicle to sell their consultancy. The retail sales of OS/2 never justified it's development costs. However, the retail "public" presence of OS/2 was important: It's very difficult to sell services on top of a system which the customer has not heard of before.
In many ways, for IBM, Linux is better than OS/2... They do not need to spend so much effort to market it. It already has a penetration into the minds of the public and generally the public perception is "It's free; it's fast; it's secure... sometimes difficult to understand" but the last bit is not a bad hurdle - it just means that the customer already expects to hire someone to put it all together.
I am pretty sure that IBM makes a lot of its profits in consultancy and custom programming. Ok, their mainframe deals can be pretty sweet for the revenue - but such big iron costs big bucks in the first place. The software front, IBM knows that it can be painful to move faster than the smaller guys (think of IBM as some kind of dancing elephant)... They are using the nimbleness of the FOSS movement to develop the foundation
Hmm... Like any long posts, I kinda forgot what my original point was...
-- The universe began. Life started on a billion worlds...
-- Except on one where stupidity was there first.