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 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
For a "FP attempt", the poster sure hit the right spot (by accident?)
If you read the article, the main problem is that some frequently used internal IBM applications only run (so far) on IE. So the users end up using Wine or VMWare (heh, sounds like my apartment mate here).
So, the problem it's not that it won't work at all, it's just that *somebody* lacked the foresight to migrate all day-to-day applications to that "customised Red Hat Linux distribution" IBM uses. And now, the problems finally hit the fan.
By reading this signature you agree to not disagree with the post you just read.
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.
They don't care whether it's Windows, Linux, FreeBSD, or whatever. They just want to get work done. If they OS enables them to do so, they'll take it.
Therefore, it's just the GUI, and you can make it to as close to Explorer as you want.
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?
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.
It took me 35m to put slackware on this machine and then about another hour to tweak it & get the applications I need on it that don't come with the distro. This was after struggling for 3 weeks putting Windows on /dev/hda1, and I never did get XP to work; finally settled with 98.
I know Windows usually ain't that bad, it's just luck of the draw. But it can happen to any OS. Please don't assume that Linux sucks just from one bad experience.
So, the problem it's not that it won't work at all, it's just that *somebody* lacked the foresight to migrate all day-to-day applications to that "customised Red Hat Linux distribution" IBM uses.
The problem started before then. It's that *somebody* lacked the foresight to procure software that didn't lock them into a particular vendor.
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
I had my current desktop system built for me in November. Came with Windows XP, which I promptly got rid of in favour of Windows 2000 Pro. In spite of the fact that all the hardware is commodity stuff, and the integrator had thoughtfully supplied me with nearly all the necessary drivers for Win9x/NT/2K/XP, it took me about a full day to install Win2K from scratch, run Windows Update, install drivers, configure hardware, *reboot about 35 times*, install software, etc.
This past weekend, I ditched Windows for SuSE 9.2. The installation itself, including time for running the SuSE Online Update to get their latest patches, was somewhere between 90 minutes and two hours. Number of reboots: *1*. (Yes, that's a "one".) At the end of this time I had a completely functional system, and all hardware had been autodetected and configured correctly. Number of drivers I had to load manually: *zero*. Number of trips to vendor websites to obtain drivers: *zero*. Number of apps I had to install separately before I could get any useful work done: *one* (BitKeeper). Number of apps that came with the distribution whose Windows equivalents either cost bucketloads or simply don't exist: *dozens*.
In fact, it wasn't until a day or two later that I printed out something, then realised that I'd not ever installed the printer. It was just there and ready to use. On Windows, installing that same printer took about an hour of loading drivers and fussing with the configuration to get it working properly.
I had/have exactly three issues:
1. KsCD didn't produce audible output until I told it to use direct access mode.
2. I had to change permissions on a bunch of email and other working files that I copied over from the Windows partition before Mozilla Mail and other apps could access them properly.
3. BitKeeper's not sending commit emails to our developer list. I'll probably have to get a bit of help configuring it and/or sendmail.
Executive summary:
1. "Everything just worked" rating >= 99%.
2. Anybody who says that Linux isn't ready for the desktop is misinformed, or a liar.
BTW, I still have two Windows boxes on my LAN (at least one of them will be getting converted to Linux as soon as I have time for it). When something goes wrong with one of them, I drop in a Knoppix CD to find out what's wrong and fix it. And when I use one of them remotely, the interface already seems clunky and counterintuitive, in spite of the fact that my reflexes aren't yet properly trained for the Linux desktop.
How much do I miss Windows? Well... I'll probably finish copying some miscellaneous files over from the the Windows partition and reformat it this weekend.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
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
sounds more like somebody took the most cost-effective option available that did the job at hand
Designing with web standards is the cost effective option. Obviously they hired the wrong people to write their internal apps (or had nobody to give them proper guidance) and now they're paying the price. It is almost always more cost effective long-term to maximize your future options. Flexibility yields efficiency. In the case of web standards, it's cheaper even in the short term to develop with strict conformance because this methodology gives you a way to test the results. "It looks right in IE" works until something breaks or IE gets updated.
And cut the crap about "zealots." If you don't know what you're talking about, don't even bother posting.
Can't help it have to bite sorry folks.
How many different desktop distributions would you use across an enterprise? Oh just the ONE, oh look that means all the apps that you need will just work!
Retraining for the desktop is not that big an issue, a quick class with every body in that building section and hey presto one week later they'll have forgotten about that, sorry whats that other office suite called?
Retraining costs = done once.
License costs = forEVER
In the end, It's all bovine dung you know
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
LINUX IS NOT GNU NUMBNUTS!!! ARE YOU MENTALLY FUCKING RETARDED? Linux was inspired by Minix and is a kernel. The programs you are referring to is the GNU Operating System (coreutils, m4, bash, binutils, gcc, etc.), a Free Software OS that cloned UNIX with many additional improvements. (Do you enjoy --long-flags? I hope you do, POSIX states that all commands should be only one letter ala -w. That's a GNU improvement.) This operating system predates the Linux kernel by just shy of ten years, and runs on top of a little kernel called Linux.
Side note - GNU/Linux is far from a time waster. A couple of months back me and another guy had to fix up a few hundred images for a site we're working on. He's the hardcore Windows user who says that "Linux is faster because you don't run as much stuff as you do in Windows"... well duh. And he doesn't see why this is a good thing.
Meanwhile, I'm a hardcore GNU nut who lives and dies at his commandline. We divided the images up in half and started getting to work, him figuring it would take several days to get it all done. Within two hours I had all the images cropped, and twenty minutes (and a short shell script invoking ImageMagick later) I had everything done. Mr. hardcore Windows point-n-click man had a little less than 75 done.
Never mess with a geek who sits behind a halfway decent shell.
That's not what I see at all. What I see 40,000 to 60,000 employees. I see politics. I see personal agendas. I see a lot of people that do not get along well, and a lot that do. I see a lot of people that do not want or welcome change, or are afraid of anything that makes their enivironment different, and then I see a lot of people that DO want change and are not afraid of it. Is any of this starting to sound familiar? Can you relate? When you have that many people involved, simply changing the brand of asswipe in the loo is going to make some people freeeek the f#ck out. With this many people involved, not much ever gets done efficiently or quickly.
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
Judging by my experiences with users as a sysadmin training when switching from one version of windows to another would be necessary as well. The people having to decide wether they do this just don't train the people because inefficient work is not a hard number while training costs are. Training for Linux would at least be necessary only once because you don't have to change to a new Windowmanager (differences between Windows versions are like two different window managers) every few years.
Linux is not Windows
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.