Slashdot Mirror
IBM Puts $100M Behind Linux Push
IainMH writes "Over at the BBC, there is a report that despite the slow build up, IBM is spending $100m (£52m) over the next three years beefing up its commitment to Linux software. It continues: 'The cash injection will be used to help its customers use Linux on every type of device from handheld computers and phones right up to powerful servers.'" Commentary and coverage also available on TechNewsWorld and ZDNet.
Might be just what it takes to get a large chunk of hardware manufacturers and software vendors to start offering Linux-friendly products.
Sure, it might not start out as Linux-friendly games and gaming hardware, but this could be a very good start.
I also hope that, when IBM starts making money with Linux, that some moral compass directs them to give something back.
There's a Mercedes gap too. I want one and can't afford one, but it's not government's job to do anything about it.
Note to IBM: MAKE YOUR OWN SOFTWARE WORK FIRST!!!
Linux IT Consulting and Domino Development in Michigan
With companies like IBM putting a lot of effort into pushing Linux, it may make businesses that are reluctant to adopt an OS that has a perceived lack of support behind it more willing to try it out.
This is good news and certainly a major push for Linux.
No, they made $2 billion using and pushing Linux and their products which either run Linux or run on top of it.
You make it sound like they're freeloading by pressing copies of Debian and selling them.
They may have had $2 billion in Linux-related revenues, but the cost of making those $2 billion in sales was significant in terms of engineering, training consultants, sales, cannibalizing other resources which were going elsewhere, etc.
How much did they sell in Windows-related purchases in that time?
500GB of disk, 5TB of transfer, $5.95/mo
Clearly IBM sees how usefull small portable devices can be and their future in the work place. This is great for serious developers of small proprietary aps for hand-helds.
If you consider the fact that by focusing on interoperability and flexability OSS and Linux is light years ahead of MS and other closed coded corps. Of course the ability to keep your small sub aps proprietary is important, but as both Linus and Richard have stated this is the key to technological innovation. If you do not like the crap being sold you change it.
Its simple really. There needs to be an umbrella of sorts to combine all aspects of Linux(kernal) and Software together. Because explaining to Auntie Jenna WHAT a kernel is, its much easier to just called it 'linux'. The common person understands somewhat, what 'linux' is. (btw, pronounced Lee-nooks) Personaly, I belive we should all get past trying to retain the geekness of Linux, and focus on getting the common man/woman to use it by making the system easier to use, and increase general knowledge of the system. If were ever going to beat microsoft, we'll need to combine forces, fighting over what to CALL the damned thing gets us no where :P
So uh, yeah, just call it linux, know your right and move on ;)
Forget the graphic part - the whole UI needs work. Package management is balkanized and bad in general, KDE/Gnome are becoming so heavy that you need a P4 just to run them, 'etc. You want to know the best way to use this money? Forget about handhelds and embedded systems - drop the whole $100 million into developing a good UI for desktop users.
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
Clearly this is almost entirely focused on the server side aka Workplace which is a huge complex assembly of AIX, Linux, Python, Java and RDBMSs. This is aimed at business space that wants to use Linux for things like CRM, Peoplesoft, SAP, Oracle, Seibel and custom made apps.
For a company that made $2 billion off of Linux in the first year, it would seem that more spending would be appropriate.
Companies don't care how much spending would be "appropriate". They are going with spending that they think is going to be profitable, just the way it should be.
Save your wrists today - switch to Dvorak
This might seem obvious, but having IBM endorse Linux (by money infusions and advertising) really helps the OS community spread the software into mainstream business. My supervisor is so old-school and tends to favor MS products, but with this kind of support from IBM, I can now at least get a couple of Linux servers up and running without complaints and my supervisor can see the reliability that exceeds Windows in these instances first-hand.
BTM
That was the turning point of my life--I went from negative zero to positive zero.
Heres a point we as a community could learn from microsoft.
Think about the Windows 9x/XP installation process.
Step 1: Put cd in, start computer
Step 2: Read welcome screen, hit 'agree'
Step 3: Wait, reboot machine
Step 4: Create user, and BAM your done.
Seriously, the common person really doesnt give two craps about Partitions, package installation, what a 'resoultion' or 'bit depth' is, or any of the normal basic *nix installation process we are all familar with.
Another part they could work on is some sort of 'auto-play' for cds. Alot of people dont know how to access a cd without it being auto-runed. So we need that sort of function in there as well.
There are plenty of very basic things that need to be done on the most basic levels before your auntie jenna will be using Linux to check her email. This is a good step, but more does need to be done.
You must be kidding ... the fact that Minix was so crappy was the reason Linus started out writing Linux in the first place. Go look for "Torvalds Tanenbaum Minix" on Google ...
Slashdot is all about open source, and most readers of slashdot believe in open source, and free software, and in its success. Why then does IBM *need* to invest so much money in it?
...Here come the moderators!
This is intriguing. IBM seems to get it. A bunch of people create free software, which IBM then takes and sells.
1. Do nothing.
2. Take software written for free by enthusiasts.
3. Profit!
http://fromthemorning.blogspot.com/
[FromTheMorning]
Everything works just like you say it should.
And "auntie jenna" will never install an OS on her computer. She will use whatever came with it when she bought it or whatever someone sets up on it.
Now, compare that to a Fedora Core 3 installation. The Fedora installation is just as easy (I think easier), but, in many cases, it will actually find your hardware without any driver hunting.
If you think it's hard to install Linux, you haven't tried in a while. Or have you been doing stage-1 Gentoo installs?
Im sure many wont agree.
I have an older PIII 700, 256MB ram.. Running BSD + kde 3.3
Works fine.. XP would be dismal on the same hardware.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
That they're trying to contribute at all should be seen as a Good Thing(tm). Yeah, maybe the could have spent more, but we're better off that they're allocating anything, no matter what the amount, than we would be if they didn't spend any money...
You mention OSX, but the reason OSX doesn't ever lack hardware support is that Apple controls the hardware. How is IBM going to control the hardware that Dell and HP use?
Plus, IBM has said they don't want to develop their own OS, but they'd rather partner with other companies (like Redhat and Novell) and help them to develop Linux. Their stated reasoning being (or so I've read somewhere), if they develop their own distro, then there's internal pressure to use it on all IBM products, whether it's a good fit or not. If they partner with Novell, and Novell's Linux isn't good for what they're doing, than maybe they've wasted money working with Novell, but they can still go with Redhat for their installs.
Because any technology they place in BSD code can be taken without their consent by their competitors and IBM get no technology in return.
A simplistic response, but gets most of the reason out there succinctly
It is the Licence, stupid.
Some could come along and take the BSD changes, incorporate into a closed project and then change things a little so things are not compatible the open project.
Sure noone would ever do that. Kerberos
At least with linux and other GPL stuff noonecan close off any changes.
Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
IBM still sells AIX, and Solaris is still the biggest selling UNIX by a large margin. What will hurt MS Windows is the evolution of the Linux Desktop. The current Linux Desktops are basically on par with Windows in usability, now what we need are games and business applications. If companies like Intuit were to step off the Windows bandwagon to make their apps portable to GNOME or KDE, that would be a huge win. If they were to do a good port to Java, the could even support Linux, Windows, and Mac OS with minimal additional effort.
-- Microsoft is the most expensive commodity operating system and office suite vendor in the marketplace.
Gentoo and Debian are centrally-manged free software projects. This means they can control all of the packages themselves, which does result in better integration, quality, etc.
.deb which wasn't in the Debian repository? Do ATI or NVidia offer kernel packages for Debian or Gentoo? No; you have to either use the centrally-managed repository version, or compile it yourself.
RPMs are not centrally managed. There are the main YUM repositories (which work nearly as well as the debian and gentoo repositories) but you can also download RPMs from many third parties.
When was the last time you saw a third party offer a
On Windows and OSX, do you install all software directly through Windows Update / Apple Update from their servers? Third party software is an important part of widespread acceptance of an operating system. RPMs could be better but they are important for commercially-oriented distros.
Well put. I recognize and respect your position.
Linux has been my hobby, and because of that, became my job. I simply love tinkering with it. But hey, my wife, both my sisters, and my parents are more like you (as are most people), and I am reminded daily of what regular people, or half-techie people (as you say) need.
With a due sense of caution, I assert that you could, once installed, manage a Gentoo system quite easily. Indeed, you would find it to be a fabulous investment. The documentation rivals anything put out by anyone else, and the message boards are fantastic. Once you got used to searching for programs and installing them effortlessly using portage, you'd wonder how you ever did it any other way. The commands are simple, though there is a learning curve in other areas (USE flags come to mind - they're great, but can be daunting as hell at first). But it is a great way to spend 10 hours of your life.
Don't get me wrong...I don't recommend Gentoo to Joe Blow, but if you tried RedHat and didn't like it (RPM distros suffer from dependecy hell, a most aptly named syndrome), you may be interested. You brought yourself far enough to pick up Linux in the first place, you may just find that Gentoo has the things you thought were missing from other distros.
In any case, you did not offend me. Your position is far more valid than mine (in terms of how many people it applies to), and we need to find a way to retain the power of a well-designed OS like Gentoo and make it more accessible. So maybe we agree. =) Here's to hoping IBM can help work towards that goal.