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

IBM wrote a redbook on the topic

[Dancin_Santa]

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.

How Disappointing

[bigtallmofo]

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.

Re:How Disappointing

[Greyfox]

I never saw any ActiveX components in the company. Mind you, I was a contractor and didn't have to access the assorted things that the regulars had to use. However, the internal development platform seems to be either Lotus Notes or Websphere/JSP. A couple of the more necessary apps were implemented in Java and ran just fine on Linux.

Lotus Notes seems to be by far the biggest thorn in everyone's side. While it does run(ish) on Wine, most people who would be adopting Linux early prefer to handle their E-Mail themselves, and no one could ever convince IT to enable the imap servers on the Notes servers.

The thing no one seems to understand about IBM is that they tend to work in 5 year cycles. All the platform planning that's going on now won't be deployed for 4 or 5 more years. That means that the Linux push, which is only a year or two old, still has some time to go before it reaches maturity. Getting a company of 200,000+ people to change course is not a quick process. I would not be surprised to see a huge deployment of Linux company-wide in about 3 years. They'll probably still be running Notes using Wine then, though.

Re:It just won't work.

[tibike77]

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.

Here's the book, read it for yourself

[Dancin_Santa]

http://www.redbooks.ibm.com/abstracts/sg246380.htm l

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.

Internal standards

[tjwhaynes]

If he wants open standards based computing, then he had better start mandating that all web applications are developed so that all relevant browsers can use 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

Re:more than insightful

[novakyu]

Case in point: I just wasted three days trying to make Debian work on a BRAND-NEW Dell. I gave up.

Well, if you are trying to do something with a BRAND-NEW computer, about which you know nothing (most likely, you don't know by heart what video card it has, what ethernet card (if not integrated into motherboard, and in that case, the drivers for motherboard) or what sound card it has---and these are basic things), you are going to struggle. For me, the first-time formatting my computers was always a pain (and yes, I was installing "user-friendly" Windows), because I never knew what hardware I had until then...

Actually, do you know what I do when I can't figure out what video card, etc. I have and I don't really want to open up the computer to look up the serial number? I boot up my computer with Knoppix---except for that one time when I was booting my roommate's computer with a gigabit ethernet card ("cutting edge" so to speak), it found all the hardwares correctly, and I just look at the system message (which, as it happens, is more informative than Windows system messages are) so that I can figure out what to do.

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: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.

Re:It just won't work.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:more than insightful

[Long-EZ]

parent should have said more ... I like Linux, but, I don't USE it, I play with it.

Not even close. I've been running my small business with Xandros Linux for over two years. I was more productive in year one than I ever was with previous versions of Windows. I just installed Xandros 3.0, and it just keeps getting better.

The Linux learning curve and occasional issues are less hassle than maintaining Windows anti-virus software and still getting the occasional brand new virus. This happened to an IT friend at work (several hundred employees). Or maintaining anti-spyware software and still having all the jacking around to the registry result in an unstable system every 6-12 months, requiring a fresh installation of Windows and all applications. If your OS is secure, you don't need a bunch of crappy bandaid solutions layered on top.

The fact is, there are excellent versions of Linux available right now that are beating Windows in stability, security AND usability, which is quite feat considering hardware and software is Windows compatible by definition. Make your life easier and check for Linux compatibiliy before buying new hardware. When I do that, it's usually easier and faster to install new hardware on Linux. No plug-n-pray, no reboot.

Most PC users only want a browser, email, and maybe word processing and spreadsheet. Most are VERY happy with Mozilla and OpenOffice.

The only issue I've had in using Linux in a very PC-intensive engineering business is QuickBooks. It runs well under CrossOver (Windows emulation), but the user interface is a bit ugly. A native Linux version or better CrossOver support for QuickBooks would be nice.

About the only PC users who can't use Linux are serious gamers. I think they should be playing dedicated game consoles instead of Windows games, but they're free to do what they want. However, we'll all be a lot better off when people stop using Windows and we can finally get away from the nonstop Outlook worms and spam spewed from zombied Windows machines. Owned Windows boxes send over 80% of all spam.

Xandros is based on Debian, but it's very easy to use. You should try it. I couldn't believe how much better it felt to use open source applications. Xandros Networks is an online repository of popular open source software, and most RPM and DEB packages can also be installed. No crappy licensing agreements, copy protection, registration hassles, EULAs, or product key codes. Pretty much, click the install button and a minute later you're running the new application. It's much easier than Windows software installation, and removing software is MUCH MUCH easier than Windows. The Xandros package manager tracks all library dependencies. Compare that with Windows, where uninstalling works right about 30% of the time, and usually leaves a lot of crap in the registry. Besides, how should I know if another application might be using a shared DLL? Can't Windows keep track of that?

Bottom line: If you can't install one of the new GUI Linux desktop operating systems, you should give up on reading Slashdot and go back to something better suited to your skilzs.

Re:It just won't work.

[Ogerman]

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.