Slashdot Mirror
IBM to Open Projects at SourceForge.net
cfelde writes "On Friday, IBM said it is contributing some 30 open-source projects to SourceForge.net. IBM also said it is expanding its own developerWorks Web site with more resources including training in PHP and other popular technologies." This probably dovetails with IBM's new full on support of the PHP language.
IBM is just protecting their interests. They beleive (like most people here) that most software will become a comodity in the near future, and instead of fighting it they roll along. I happen to beleive it's wise, but's quite a bold move.
Anyway, yes, it is weird. Not to long ago IBM was as hatred as Microsoft is now...
They have it, why not create a sourceforge like site for their own projects instead of using the good will of other open source companies?
or do they plan to donate some money to it to help it all as a whole??
IBM is in an odd situation no doubt, but using OpenSource public tools when properly funded seems somewhat.. rude, no?
If IBM was able to turn around from the "Bad Guy(tm)" to a geek's best friend, I think there is a possibility that many years from now, today's Evil Empire, Microsoft, might become a geek's best friend while, oh, let's say Google became the new "Bad Guy(tm)
May God help us all...Robert Bindler
A Computer Science student's views on technology.
are they 30 projects that IBM is interested in or 30 projects that they were planning to abandon but felt they could get some goodwill outof instead?
What it's about:
An interesting bit on the transition and recovery of IBM was on the BBC a couple days back, refreshing and adding a layer of information to my memory of experience with the behemoth IT company. IBM's core business is selling service, not hardware (they sold the PC unit to Lenovo) and big iron doesn't sell much anymore, so they've come to the point of making some hardware, but throwing their weight behind systems and services. Why so much given to Open Source? IBM is more than just friendly to Linux and Open Source, but see them as their life blood. They won't make money pushing systems built around Microsoft Windows, because that leaves too much leverage in an external (and sometimes unfriendly) camp. Not to overlook the taint associated over the past few years with gaping security holes in Microsoft products, which could reflect very negatively on IBM having to go in and clean up the mess. A couple years ago IBM had already broken the 1G$ barrier on Linux systems, in one quarter. I haven't looked at their company statements lately, but it's clear this is their planned direction of growth.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
I think some folks just like to gripe.
Opening this code will dovetail nicely with IBM becoming more of a services-focused company. When BigCo wants a project implemented & maintained using open source, IBM will be there to lend a hand (for a price of course).
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
It's really hard to fault you, actually. History is hard to forget, and it's not unreasonable to wonder if a company can really change it's culture and philosophy so radically.
On the other hand, if someone is giving you a bunch of cool stuff ( i.e. source code ), and doing so under terms ( i.e. license ) that are acceptable to you... it's generally a good thing. I'm not seeing the downside, at least for OSS developers. The downside could be there, of course... but I can't easily think of what it could be.
The upside for IBM, on the other hand, is pretty obvious... it's not like they've done this entirely without thinking of their own benefit. Maybe thinking of it that way will make you feel better? It's not so much that IBM has radically changed ( though it has ), it's that they've figured out how to leverage open source development ?
Languages are a tool - and each tool has its own use. You shouldn't use a screwdriver to pound a nail, as it were. Because even though you might get it to work, you're putting more effort into it than you really need to.
To me, PHP is great for small, agile projects - ones that need to be designed and written quickly, and require a lot of changes to the code to happen throughout implementation.
I think OO PHP isn't all bad - being able to compartmentalize your code for reuse and complexity reduction is great.
My concern, however, is that people will start to look at PHP as an enterprise level language, which in my opinion, it isn't. Every PHP project that I've worked on started to break down after a certain level of complexity. I think part of this was due to the lack of Object Orientation, but I think part of it was also the nature of the language itself. I'll be interested to see what IBM can do with PHP, but lets just say I don't envy their guys if they're trying to switch their enterprise level development to use it.
// harborpirate
// Slashbots off the starboard bow!
I' pretty sure people knock it because it's easy. Some people feel intimidated by things being made easier for the masses because they're afraid of being obsolete. A rather prominent greek philosopher came out against paper because he felt it'd be the downfall of society. Young people wouldn't bother to memorize things anymore and so and so forth. Many people attack PHP as a language that let's bad programmers make websites, so clearly they're talking about the downfall of programming civilization. Now php does have some syntax issues, but hopefully those'll get worked out before too long. I still think it makes a great first language for people to discover programming with.
Stop intellectual property from infringing on me
No, IBM thinks CPU time will be the commodity and services will the the cash cow. Stable, reliable open software will be the grease, the public good.
Who do you get to be an expert to tell you something's not obvious? The least insightful person you can find? -J Roberts
This is not the terrace at a football game, Microsoft is not the enemy. They are merely a competitor to a fraction of OSS projects.
:)
Open source software lives and thrives within a Windows environment. Given any of the common OS's, I can download and install legal software without paying a penny more. It doesn't matter if I am using a Mac or an x86 or something else, software is available.
If you want the Linux OS to suceed however, you have to convince Dell and HP and Time and Tiny that the OS on their machines is stable and can be supported. I do not know a single home user who has purchased or changed their operating system for a machine they have bought. They will put up with whatever is there until its hardware renewal time.
I couldn't care less what OS people use, as long as they have choice. Its in our own best interests though to push and market OSS principles and benefits to the rest of the world.
IBM and Novell have backed a winner in Linux, and with such big names standing behind it, it wont be long before others follow
liqbase
IBM, while dominating and monopolistic in its day, did have a reputation for quality and topnotch research.
Yes, there is MS Research but it's in no way comparable to IBM Research.
And don't even mention MS and "quality" in the same breath unless the words "lack of" are placed between them.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
All corporations want it money.
Lots and lots and lots of money.
But that's it. Nothing else.
If they think the best way to make money is by screwing their customers over, then many of them will do it.
But if a large corporation thinks it can make more money using a different approach, it will.
Free and open source software is the biggest movement in the software industry today, and is likely to be so for a long time. IBM is riding the wave, so to speak, but is smart enough to realise it's got to give a little as well as take. And it can still make lots of money doing so.
It's also in its interest to support a movement in which many people (but not all) have a strong dislike of several of their major competitors: Microsoft (deservedly so, I would say), Sun (a little harshly, in my opinion) and, increasingly it would seem, HP.
There is this. I am a Ruby convert as well. I think it's so much cleaner than other scripting languages. Most of it "just makes sense." I personally am not using it not so much as a web app framework as a replacement for my company's plethora of ASP work. Using eRuby on Apache I hope to keep things moving along...