Slashdot Mirror
The OS Community Embraces IBM
Joel Dutt writes "IBM... 'the corporation known as Big Blue has seen its reputation in the global open-source community shift from suspect sugar daddy to knight in shining armor.' Newsweek has an interesting article in its latest issue, discussing the relationship between the open-source community and the corporate giant."
hasn't IBM stood behind Linux for quite some time? They've always pushed hardware that is somewhat Linux specific.
Not to mention, no dork I've ever met didn't like IBM. They make solid machines. Pretty good software. So what's the problem?
They really have done some great things for the open-source community. Howerver, by being affilated with the open-source community, they ultimately get more buyers of their products. This helps erase the market share of its competitors. Just something to think about.
US businesses that currently accept chip and PIN/signature
Of course they are a company, with shareholders and the the desire to make a profit. So are Red Hat, VA Linux, and Mandrake.
There is nothing wrong with a company supporting Linux, that's exactly what Linux needs to bring it to the attention of the general public. IBM has essentially been advertising Linux for a while now. They've put more money into Linux than pretty much anyone else has. This is what Linux has lacked: big money supporting Linux.
_____
Thank you.
Everywhere else, the press hacks mention IBM's billions of dollars in Linux-related revenue, but they don't mention that an IT staffer told to buy Windoze servers from either HP or IBM might inexplicably favor IBM because they're a Groklaw reader.
Who do you get to be an expert to tell you something's not obvious? The least insightful person you can find? -J Roberts
is my friend.
Linux and IBM, strange bedfellows indeed. IBM is every bit the big, evil, monopolist corporation that RMS and the rest of the Linux zealots rail against. IIRC, IBM, too, is a "convicted monopolist" just as M$ is and Apple tried to be. The only difference is, IBM succeeded where Apple failed - they had the hardware *and* the software lock-in. What was the saying? Oh yeah, "nobody ever got fired for buying IBM." Today, replace IBM with Microsoft. By the way, how many American jobs has IBM shipped to India or replaced with H1Bs under the pretext of a labor shortage? And how much of the same has IBM helped others do under the same pretext through their consultancy, IBM Global Services? But since they've chosen to embrace Linux because it's in their short-term self-interest to do so, all of their many sins are forgiven.
Make no mistake about it, IBM doesn't give a ripshit about "the community" or anyone/thing else other than the Almighty Dollar. The only reason they're fighting SCO is because they're heavily invested in Linux as a way to compete with Microsoft. If IBM felt that it was in their short-term best interest to wipe Linux off of the face of the Earth, they would.
I am a frequent reader of Jonathan Schwartz' blog, and one of his constant themes/rants is that the open source community respects IBM more than it deserves.
In my opinion, other companies (i.e. Sun) are jealous of IBM's unique position and would like nothing more than to ruin that relationship.
IBM, while not entirely faultless, has taken a huge risk in tying some of its business and marketing campaigns to the success of Linux. Even while having AIX. I wish the same could be said for Sun. Glad to see it's paying of for IBM, in the form of profits and community goodwill.
IBM, last time I checked, made something like 45% of its revenue from hardware and 35% from consulting. Software accounts for a paltry 15% (the rest they make from finance). IBM is not in the software business, really. They make AIX so they can sell RS/6000s. They make VisualAge so people can write desktop applications for DB/2 databases, and they make DB/2 so people will buy mainframes. The consulting part of IBM is fairly vendor-neutral; I've worked with them to implement BEA WebLogic on Solaris instead of WebSphere on AIX for example.
Software is an overhead for IBM. It's a distraction from hardware and services. Open Source allows IBM to sell hardware and services without having to pay to develop the software to run on it and/or implement on behalf of customers. That's the reason, and the only reason, IBM is into Linux.
My impression of IBM is that they would prefer not to be in the operating system business.
Even more, it is my impression that IBM would also be out of the software market as well, and comoditize it instead. The most profitable part of a solution is in professional services.
"Open-source geeks are devout in their belief that software should be free to all..."
"...and what the open-source community sees as a Microsoft front company bent on destroying their free paradise."
Once again, the linux community is portrayed as a bunch of geeks pinching pennies, not worried so much about free software but rather free (as in healthy beer) software.
IBM realized that the software industry would change the most from the era of the Internet, unlike hardware and consulting services. A company expecting to make its bread and butter from software will be in a constant rush to stay one step ahead of thousands, if not millions, of unpaid software developers who write software for no other purpose than to have it the way they want. The Internet made it possible for those legions of volunteers to congregate internationally, as well as publicize and distribute for free.
If only other companies had the vision to look that far ahead and make the hard decisions necessary to evolve.
>In short, they like Linux when they can make money off it, and will rip it to shreds if they think they can sell you something more expensive.
To be fair, you were talking to sales people. There are few sales people who don't have this kind of attitude.
"The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." -Plato
"The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist."
- Verbal, The Usual Suspects
scott king
The rest is open-source history.
Interestingly, IBM's embracing Linux is one of the factors eliminating Sun as a viable competitor in the market for highend servers. 6-sigma Linux, backed by an army of free programmers and advice-givers, versus closed proprietary Solaris is tantamount to a battle between a F-22 (stealth fighter) and a Mig 17. No contest.
Microsoft did save us from the hardware lock-in single vendor world that IBM was trying to create. The result is that "PC" hardware sells at just above cost and is available from a widge range of vendors offering an even wider range of possible products.
Now we just have to do the same thing at the OS and office suite levels and...
What would Ayn Rand have against Linux? Linux isn't communism.
Open source is either a hobby or a different business model -- and that includes the GPL. Programmers contribute to open source or free software for a number of reasons. Sometimes it's to acquire status (i.e. make business connections); sometimes it is to develop a product and establish themselves as experts in that product, which will then make it easy to position themselves as consultants; and sometimes it is merely for the joy of working on something cutting edge with a group of other intelligent, motivated people.
What in the above is anti-capitalistic?
The phenomenon that is open source or free software merely illustrates that there are a lot of talented, motivated, and ambitious individuals in programming. Additionally, it arises from the fact that software is difficult to design. A small shop or lone consultant could not design meaningful, robust software (barring very few exceptions). Open source is a way for small entrepreneurs to strike out on their own.
Sure, there are "hippies" in open source -- but so what? A capitalistic society makes room for free software as it does "free love."
quiquid id est, timeo puellas et oscula dantes.