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."
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.
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
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 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.
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.
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
How are all the Linux boosters out there going to feel when you wind up trading one dictator for another?
Well, If I think that IBM is getting too big for its britches I can go talk to HP, Dell, or for that matter Red Hat or Suse. To be a dictator you have to have absolute power. With Linux no one can ever have absolute power. I will always have choices, up to and including rolling my own distro if need be. The only way now to give someone like IBM absolute power is to sign your company's life away with a comprehensive support contract, and no one is forcing you to do that.
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.