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?"

Comments

having worked for IBM

[HBI]

I can honestly say that a lot would have to be done with their own internal applications to bring them to Linux. Domino client won't run. Neither is a Sametime client available. Both were in heavy use in IBM Global Services, at least.

I don't understand the unwillingness to port these two desktop pieces (both being on Linux would be handy where I am now), but between that and the web apps, they have a lot of work ahead if they want to fulfill a Linux desktop.

There are alternatives - Wine as depicted in the article. Crossover Office supports the Domino client. Meanwhile, the extension for Gaim, works okay as a Sametime integrator. Still, none of those solutions would lend themselves to correcting the internal issues at IBM. They have control of the apps - porting them natively is logical.

Re:having worked for IBM

[Amiga Trombone]

I can honestly say that a lot would have to be done with their own internal applications to bring them to Linux. Domino client won't run. Neither is a Sametime client available. Both were in heavy use in IBM Global Services, at least.

I don't understand the unwillingness to port these two desktop pieces (both being on Linux would be handy where I am now), but between that and the web apps, they have a lot of work ahead if they want to fulfill a Linux desktop.

When the original story was posted about a year ago I got into a long discussion with another IBMer about why this just wasn't gonna fly. Not only are there not suitable versions of all of IBM's internal applications available, if you work in Global Services at a customer site, chances are pretty good that the customer is going to be using application that you can't easily replace, either.

Anyway, things have changed a little since the original initiative. For one, IBM no longer owns a desktop PC company, and has little incentive for pushing Intel-based Linux boxes on the desktop anymore.

And considering that these days, a Macintosh has more IBM parts in it than most so-called "IBM compatibles", you can't help but wonder if that might be The Next Big Thing they choose to push. It's certainly a friendlier desktop, it's got MS Office (and IBM has a licensing arrangement for the Mac version as well as Windows) and a Notes client available for it, and if worse comes to worse, you can run your Windows software on Virtual PC (which they also have a licensing arrangement for). Considering IBM has nothing to gain by pushing Intel desktops anymore, you can only wonder what might be in the works behind the scenes.

IE!!!???

[sensate_mass]

OMFG. The only thing they use is IE. That's the only thing their help desk is, uh, helpful with. I'm sure that's not where all their problems are coming from, but it speaks of an organization that isn't at all agile.

I love a lot of the things that IBM does and comes up with, but if your organization isn't flexible enough to work with more than one browser, you've got some serious problems.

Sounds like the Microsoft Lifetime Employment Program has deep roots at IBM.

Re:Notes...

[HBI]

The Domino web interface is ungainly and not standard. Furthermore, it's not Section 508 compliant which means US Government sites using it are being converted to other technologies rapidly.

You wouldn't tolerate it on your own web site, I suspect, and users never have liked it.

We want Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

The average user doesn't want Linux. THey want the familiar Windows.

I work for IBM. Most of the people in my department who have a preference want Linux on our ThinkPads. Some of us dual boot anyway. I use cygwin on XP for now. Once there's a certified Linux C4EB, I'm switching.

Re:We want Linux

[Amiga Trombone]

Once there's a certified Linux C4EB, I'm switching.

The last time I checked, they'd taken the last version of Linux C4EB off of the web site, and left a message that it would be available again after being tweaked based on the feedback they'd received.

That was a few months ago, and it still hadn't made a re-appearance as of about a week ago.

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.

Re:what went wrong?

[El Gordo Motoneta]

Have you even read the article?

Do you REALLY believe that a *corporate desktop* computer
needs to "easily install software" or "configure printers"?

I, for one, would cut off your fingers if i caught you installing
crap on one of my company's workstations.

Having seen more than one medium-sized company deploy desktops,
I'm positive that all computers are already configured to run
anything they need to run and print anywhere they need to print
*before* they are presented to the user.

No. The problem is (as you might have learned if you R the FA)
is at the application level. They are running into problem with
web-based applications that were geared towards Internet Explorer.
They are running applications on Wine (which they list as a
temporary workaround themselves).

So, you are right in that there are problems yet to be fixed,
but completely failed to put your finger on what it is that needs
fixing.

Re:more than insightful

[AlanWay]

When I want to get WORK done, I boot XP.

Depends what work you do, I guess.

I work for a living and use Linux all day, every day. I'm much more productive now than 3 years ago when I was forced to use Windows. (Unix sysadmin for 15 years)

I work in a very Windows oriented office, IIS based Intranet (ntlm auth reqd), Exchange, Windows shared directories etc, but there's NOTHING I cant do on my Linux box.

A GUI should be a personal choice. Personally I use a very minimal FluxBox, because it suits the way I work. (To me a GUI is a way to have lots of command line windows open at once :-) Others prefer the full Start Button, System Tray thing, good on em. If thats what you need to be productive, go for it.

Oh, and when I want to get WORK done, I don't boot linux. It's alwaysi running. (Barring unfortunate UPS issues :)

Re:How Disappointing

[Sloppy]

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?

Forget that, what does it say about their overall sanity? Linux isn't the only platform that ActiveX doesn't run on -- it hardly runs on anything at all. They could have been trying to upgrade to MacOS or BSD or (heh) AIX or anything, and they would have trouble. They could have tried to eat their own dog food on hardware, by say, switching to PPC 970 machines or something like that, and even if they got a MS Windows port to that hardware, the ActiveX crap would have given them grief. When you lock yourself into this kind of shit, you're saying No to all possible futures, where Linux is just one little face in the crowd.

The really sad thing is that ActiveX has only been around about 10 years. It's not like this used to be a good idea that fell out of fashion, but then it was too late because they were trapped in a legacy -- it was always dumb, from day 1. This story isn't about Linux, it's about how IBM fucked themselves by not thinking. It's about how they didn't fire some idiot in time to prevent long-lasting damage.