Slashdot Mirror
IBM Desktop Linux Pledge, One Year Later
Blue writes "It's been more than a year since the bold announcement from IBM that they planned on dumping Windows for Linux throughout the company. InfoWorld is reporting that not all is well with IBM's desktop Linux push. What went wrong?"
The average user doesn't want Linux. THey want the familiar Windows.
The redbook is about 200 pages, but it talks mostly about the migration of desktops by discussing server administration techniques rather than focusing on enabling users to upgrade painlessly.
Linux (nay, any OS) migration is tough work for the administrators *and* the users whom it affects.
It's not a surprise that they weren't able to do it.
If IBM of all companies is developing their internal applications to require Internet-Explorer dependent technologies like ActiveX... What does this say about their commitment to Linux?
Hopefully this is just a case of a huge company's left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing. But still, this is very disappointing.
I'm a big tall mofo.
Yum and apt-get are largely superior software installation solutions to anything MS has, why isn't the last step in releasing a new software package to put it on the yum / apt-get / urpmi repositories?
Why hasn't a method for using Windows installation information directly been found for scanners and printers?
IMHO, this is in part because the community is still in denial that this problem exists.
While Linux is a superior server solution, IBM's best desktop move would probably be remarketing the Mac-mini, which is a *nix environment on which even end users can install hardware and software NOW, not hopefully next year.
Tech Public Policy stuff
People fear loss. What is stopping people from making the switch is the fear of losing the control of their computer that they have taken so very long to cultivate. Not to mention all the internal documents that probably have been created over the last few years using the .doc extention. Who wants to go through years of porting old files?
This is another way of starting a sig with this and ending it with that.
Complex problems have complex answers- more complex than IBM is going to answer quickly.
Deployment of open source software is one thing, success at doing so is another. Even for IBM, the challenge is daunting. The number of individuals that just don't get the "why" of open source is simply overwhelming.
There is too much hype surrounding Linux- we want the answer too fast. Windows dominates, and knocking it off its tower its no small task.
Only when there is a more facile solution than Windows will the tower be toppled. But topple it will.
befuddled (noun) 1. Unable to create a pithy sig
IBM probably just miscalculated the complexity of such a project. Like the article states, a good portion of the problem is not "windows vs linux" itself, it'S that they've written quite a bunch of essential web based apps that run, possibly, as ActiveX components in IE.
If such is the case, they might want to take a look at the Mozilla ActiveX project, which might help them fix their IE modules to work in Mozilla, while they rewrite it with something better than ActiveX (like, Java possibly).
Replacing Windows with Linux was a very ambitious idea to begin with; hats off to IBM for having set themselves such a high goal, instead of just trailing with the crowd and keeping windows boxes forever.
After all, isn't a big part of the reason why corporations keep windows is because it's just less painful than to actually *work* on a migration to anything else? Sure the windows problems are huge, but companies like to see short term. And in the short term, fixing windows is easier. IBM is seeing long-term.
Let them the time to migrate what they didn't really think of when they called the project, and then we'll see.
The two biggest issues holding back desktop Linux migrations are the compatability with MS-proprietary formats: MS Office docs (.doc, .xls, .ppt, etc) and IE's slightly non-standard take on HTML. Linux doesn't offer very good compatability.
I run into this all the time at work: OO does a pretty good job of opening simple documents, but has problems with those containing embedded tables, hyperlinks, custom header/footer, etc. How many legacy documents in the IBM repositories contain complex format MS Office documents? Probably alot.
As for IE - lots of sites just won't function without the viral vector ActiveX in place, or just simply don't look right in Mozilla - the format is off, the buttons don't appear aligned, etc. Some interactive web sites simply don't work.
How much of this stuff is present at a huge organization like IBM? How many "legacy" web apps and docs are running which were produced before IBM's love affair with Linux began?
That was a bold statement (migrate to Linux desktops by the end of 2005), but like so much that comes from upper management, motivated in politics and reflective of leadership slightly out of touch with reality. I doubt their project budget included the funds to rewrite IE-only web sites and modify all the company's documentation.
... parent should have said more ... I like Linux, but, I don't USE it, I play with it.
... well, maybe I'd consider running Linux as my daily iron.
... that's why they call it ... work.
... etr cetera ... the better.
Matter of fact, playing's all that it's good for, for me. Takes too much effort to make stuff do anything useful. If I was a college student, with lots of spare time on my hands, and no wife and kids
When I want to get WORK done, I boot XP.
Work, that place where I do stuff and get paid for it
As long as the boss expects to make money off my efforts, we'll be using what we know works and isn't a time sink.
Case in point: I just wasted three days trying to make Debian work on a BRAND-NEW Dell. I gave up.
The sooner the Linux community can come up with a foolproof and user-friendly UI, support for ALL hardware without going through endless hoops and asking on onscure newsgroups for the "uber geek who has THE code"
Well, they made a bold push to do this by the end of 2005... so they have 1 year left to beat their own goal.
I'd say the problems they are experiencing are due course when migrating to a different platform. Sure, IE wrecked browser standards and many people had to play fiddle to Microsoft and write IE compatible pages. That's going to take a while to fix and there will be problems.
Porting some of their other apps in going to be a long and painful process.
I can't see any transition to another operating system being a smooth transition. For sure there WILL be DIFFICULT problems for them.
This is just part and parcel of development, and not a reason to give up on Linux AT ALL.
Good news is that Linux will be a better platform once their present-day trials are over, and they complete what they set out to do.
READY.
PRINT ""+-0
Here I am using Firefox to TRY to read the comments of other posters, but the comments bleed over into the sections list and comment separator bars are partway over the text above and below and I can't tell what people wrote.
I would think that Slashdot, being such an open-source advocate, would at least make their page render properly with the most popular open source browser.
But if Slashdot can't be bothered to do it to their page, which is their entire business, how can people expect IBM to do their web-based internal help support which isn't really a source of income for them?
I think the most important resisting factor is actually the customers. As much as IBM likes to lead, they can't leave the customers behind, and the customers are mostly locked into Microsoft's "tender" embrace. A lot of that could be addressed alternatives that use compatible file formats, but even there Microsoft has a high measure of control.
The drag of support problems has already been mentioned. That actually involves several parts. The easier part creating is installable versions of various programs and the OS itself. The real problem there is that Linux is not so monolithic, whereas defining a set of "official" software is essentially a monolithic task. The other side is help desk support, and IMO no one has that down pat for Linux.
Drag #3 is the migration path. I think there has to be an overlap period, but how to do that is tricky. Give people two machines? Use something like VMware?
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
Actually thats precisely what the internal standards do say. I find that waving them under the nose of the respective developer is quite instructive. And occassionally successful - several web apps which used to be IE only work seamlessly under Firefox/Mozilla these days. The number of web apps which are IE-only is shrinking fast.
Cheers,
Toby Haynes
Anything I post is strictly my own thoughts and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the opinions of IBM.
Ok, thats kind of circular, but you get my problem.
I think this is turning out to be more of a challenge than they anticipated. But assuming they're dedicated to working through all the issues, it could be beneficial to desktop Linux in general.
Completely agree. Linux on the desktop has *great* potential because there is so much more you can do with it than Windows. With the combination of Athena-style network administration and the Coda filesystem (for laptops) you can do amazong things with a small support staff.
Unfortunately, the successful deployments don't really leverage all Linux's strengths, and the result is a cheap imitation of Windows, and it is still a bit rough around the edges for use as a standard enterprise desktop, network administration wise. This is largely because we haven't seen a lot of large deployments which have allowed people to sit down and work through the issues.
So it is natural that IBM will go through a *lot* of problems. Hopefully they have a good system in place to look at these problems and solve them. Then they will be well positioned to help others migrate as well.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
First of all, I'm a Linux user and have been for some time. I run a Gentoo box, and am fairly comfortable with all system administration tasks. I have tried out many Linux distros, as well as the BSDs. I also have a full time Windows box (I use "second-generation" hardware for my linux box) for running games. I like Linux, and I use it as my main system. But even I, a vocal supporter of Linux, cannot overlook that there are some flaws. I know that when I attach a new piece of hardware, there will likely be some googling for a howto or drivers, or a kernel recompile. I know that a lot of programs that Windows users can take for granted (like Skype) can be a day's work to have working correctly on Linux. Now, I put up with it because it is free, stable, and has an excellent variety of software. I am sure that the more user-friendly distros, like suse and mandrake, or fedora, have many problems solved. In my mind, these distros are giving up some of what I like about Linux. I guess it all boils down to what level of control do you want, and what kind of user-friendliness do you need. Maybe I'm missing something, but no OS or distro has both on the desktop.
Instead of fixing things for him I showed him what the problems were to the best of my ability - I'm a 6-year Linux "power user" if you will but far from an expert, so the rest of the stuff we just Googled. Eventually he got to the point where he was coding, doing his daily check-in and builds and demoing the app, which is working pretty well now. His changes are then backported to the main Windows trunk to ensure everything works. We're thinking of also supporting BSD at this point.
It just takes time. Even the most savvy PC users will have problems. I can't believe IBM would be that different, especially when trying to move their less technical folks to a brand new environment. Just give them time.
Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
the article asserts that ibm is failing to live up to a strategic shift to linux. the shift is still under way. ibm is a large and complex operation. it will take a few years. no story there.
the timeframe the article is using to suggest that they are late is misleading. sam p's challenge was exactly that, a challenge. not an order or threat. it was not the deadline.
further, the issues plaguing ibm in escaping ie highlight the dangers in using non-open/non-standards compliant software quite nicely. ibm should learn from this.
finally, the article is long on innuendo, but short on fact. that is telling in an article on a subject as technical as this one.
call me a troll if you like, but i stand by my intuition.
sum.zero
And at a conference every machine I saw had the Linux Client on it. Is that the difference between the technical departments and the Sales team?
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said: "I drank what?" - Chris Knight (Val Kilmer)- Real Genius
The FIX is for Slashdot to use compliant HTML which would, incidentally, save them an awful lot of money if they could be bothered to do it. Sure they could use tables etc to make sure it all works in older browsers, but at least make the website validate.
g if"
The code of this website reads like it was exported from Frontpage circa 1995.
BODY BGCOLOR="000000"
TEXT="000000"
LINK="666666" VLINK="000000"
TOPMARGIN="0" LEFTMARGIN="0"
MARGINWIDTH="0" MARGINHEIGHT="0"
and continues
TD BACKGROUND="//images.slashdot.org/slashbar-black.
BGCOLOR="666666" WIDTH="99%"
FONT FACE="arial,helvetica" SIZE="4" COLOR="FFFFFF"
They don't even use CSS for heavens sake, look at all those wasted lines full of 'arial,helvetica'. There are 1538 instances of the tag FONT in the markup for this article. That's 1538 too many.
Stop the insanity!
I deal with a number of areas within IBM as a customer of theirs. I see two things working against their moving platforms internally.
First, I work in a Microsoft shop. IBM suplies a good deal of software to us (3270 emulator, Rational Robot, PC migration tools, etc.) and I expect IBM to support them and be experts in those areas. It would be difficult for them to provide the level of service we require while their people are trying to do their primary functions on a linux box. As an administrator, I have tried switching to a linux desktop to administer a Windows environment. With the help of Citrix, I was able to perform a great deal of my job function, but no where near all of it. I have no doubt that they are in the same boat.
In a slightly related situation, I know a few of their subject experts who have taken years to get where they are. I am sure they would not like to see all of their hard work washed away and being returned to a novice status by having their support area replaced.
Second, I see this as simple matter of time and money. Sure a mainframe support person could switch his desktop from Windows to Linux if all of his tools were available, but who has time for that? He has critical tickets to remediate. Something as trivial as switching desktops is probably not very high on his priority list. It does not matter that a high ranking offical stated that they would like to see him switch platforms. What manager wants to pay for the down-time it is going to take to make the cut-over and re-educate the user? As long as his job performance is based on other metrics, he is going to ignore the directive until it is convenient for him to follow it.