Slashdot Mirror


IBM Turns to Open Source Development

mmmbop writes "'Is open source changing the way that software is made? It is at IBM. BetaNews sat down with Doug Heintzman, IBM Software Group's VP of Strategy and Technology, to discuss the adoption of a hybrid development model called Community Source that combines the best elements of the open source model with decades of IBM programming practice - avoiding a top down approach that IBM says could make Microsoft's Longhorn obsolete upon arrival.' A long read, but well worth it."

142 comments

  1. everybody is doing it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    Nokia,Apple too

    if you want computing (for the good of society) to advance as well as your profits you had better get on board

    makes you wonder who will be left at the station, we already know whos late

  2. Caveat Emptor by katana · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Never trust someone who says that Lotus Notes is "highly functional."

    1. Re:Caveat Emptor by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      Lotus Notes is highly functional... provided you buy the $800,000 server cluster and hire the nine admins to maintain it and the twenty-six developers to shape it.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    2. Re:Caveat Emptor by bdeclerc · · Score: 4, Informative

      Sorry, got a system with 3500 users on 14 x86-servers (no clusters) geographically spread out, with about 200 *different* applications outside e-mail.

      One main administrator, a few local part-time ones who only do things like create new users.

      One developer.

      Works like a charm. For sure, the Notes UI is Idiosyncratic at best, extremely frustrating at its worst, but for the kind of things it does well, nothing comes close!

    3. Re:Caveat Emptor by twitter · · Score: 0, Funny
      Never trust someone who says that Lotus Notes is "highly functional."

      Or "Microsoft Works."

      --

      Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

    4. Re:Caveat Emptor by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      I seem to have forgotten to add "sense of humor" to the list of things to have for a large-scale Notes deployment. :)

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    5. Re:Caveat Emptor by bloodhawk · · Score: 0

      see now that is funny, you need 14 servers for your 3500 users for notes and you actually think that is good. That is an appalling ratio. our organisation has 55,000 employees spread around the world and 30 exchange servers spread across 3 sites. think about it, you are handling less than 350 users a server for MAIL.

    6. Re:Caveat Emptor by Curtman · · Score: 1
      bdeclerc:
      with about 200 *different* applications outside e-mail.

      You:
      you are handling less than 350 users a server for MAIL.

      Uhhh.. No. You're just handling mail.
    7. Re:Caveat Emptor by gromitcode · · Score: 1

      ahhhh no we are not just handling mail, we have all our workflow in exchange as well public folder stores, over 12TB of data and apps all up. why I said you are only handling mail is due to your poor sentence construction of 200 applications "outside" e-mail.

    8. Re:Caveat Emptor by Curtman · · Score: 1

      why I said you are only

      I'm not handling any mail, and it wasn't my sentence. I understood it though, and apparently you had trouble with it. I was just helping you out.

    9. Re:Caveat Emptor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I work for IBM and while Notes itself is alright once you get past the annoying interface, Sametime is a piece of shit.

    10. Re:Caveat Emptor by ozmanjusri · · Score: 1

      I work for IBM and while Notes itself is alright once you get past the annoying interface

      It would be unlikely, but interesting if IBM open sourced Notes. Groupware & scheduling is a key weakness in current FOSS office products. Star Office suffered from a clunky interface for most of its working life, but from the current beta versions, it looks like OO/SO 2 is going to break that hoodoo. Maybe a similar kick forward would work for Notes as well.

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    11. Re:Caveat Emptor by bdeclerc · · Score: 1

      Did I say we *need* 14 servers? We've got so many because we are very geographically spread out, and servers can be cheaper than bandwidth...

      The largest server manages about 1000 users, and the only reason it doesn't handle more is that it doesn't need to. With a bit of extra memory, it could probably handle considerably more users, but they are simply not there...

      The main reason I listed our environment was to show that this system is handled by 1 Admin & 1 developer, to counter the implications made by the parent's remark.

      You have 3 sites, we have about 100 sites... think about it...

      And also, remember we're using Notes applications, don't even think about comparing what Exchange does to all that Notes can do....

    12. Re:Caveat Emptor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I work for IBM too, and Lotus Notes was forced upon us. It is a pig; resource hungry, slow, unintuitive and unfriendly.

      If IBM want to extend the development philosophy that they have applied to this product, God help the Open Source community.

    13. Re:Caveat Emptor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah..Lotus Notes. Every time a new course starts for us and the teacher goes "We'll be doing this with Lotus Notes" I can just feel the whole class thinking "Fuck this. I've got better things to do than torture myself with more of this crap."

    14. Re:Caveat Emptor by ozmanjusri · · Score: 1

      I work for IBM too, and Lotus Notes was forced upon us. It is a pig; resource hungry, slow, unintuitive and unfriendly.

      Um, yes. But my point is that those perjoratives were applied to early versions of Star Office too. Opening the source could be a way of getting it working properly.

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
  3. Longhorn obsolete upon arrival ? by Cobra_666 · · Score: 0

    Well, I'd rather say that it's already obsolete... Even without IBM's turn to Open Source. Unless of course Microsoft will dominate the market with help from the whole Trusted Computing Hardware Vendor Lock-in Tool and people's "it works well enough" and "I don't give a shit" attitude...

    1. Re:Longhorn obsolete upon arrival ? by bakes · · Score: 1

      Unless of course Microsoft will dominate the market with help from the whole Trusted Computing Hardware Vendor Lock-in Tool and people's "it works well enough" and "I don't give a shit" attitude...

      Microsoft can't possibly be counting on this, it would never work.

      --
      Ho! Haha! Guard! Turn! Parry! Dodge! Spin! Ha! Thrust!
  4. IBM: good for open source by Sheetrock · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I've worked with IBM products for a long time, and I think of all the computer companies their adoption of open source techniques for software development surprises me least.

    Traditionally IBM's methodologies have been very close to (and predate) that of open source, which derived much of its culture and programming mindset from that of IBM or Bell Labs. Their documentation as compared to other hardware/software developers has always encouraged the user to learn about and extend the environment in which they work rather than supporting only a superficial "click here, then there" mentality.

    IBM has always been good for open source. It makes sense that open source can be good for IBM as well.

    --

    Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
    -- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.




    1. Re:IBM: good for open source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, MVT and MVS used to be opensource
      Then Object only,
      Then sort of heading back to open source.
      Note IBM's best growth spurts can from when open source was trendy and unfettered.
      Whatever the initial pain, opensource is the way to go, but at the same time, history shows the gains can have a lead time of 10 years. MS remains quite safe.

    2. Re:IBM: good for open source by copypaste · · Score: 1

      15-20 years ago, I was a systems programmer on VM/SP . I always remember how shocked I was that all the OS source code was shipped with the installation. We used that code quite a bit for reference and sometimes even changed it. I guess it wasn't really open but it sure was handy to have around.

  5. community? by sinuhe · · Score: 1

    'Community source' sounds like another excuse to act like you are releasing free software, then hold back on how you can modify or redistribute it. Didn't Microsoft pull the same FUD with their 'shared source' thing?

    1. Re:community? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This article doesn't claim that they are open-sourcing any software, or using open-source software. They are using the open source system internally (like a mini, IBM-only SourceForge, etc.) and modularizing their software to increase productivity.

    2. Re:community? by sinuhe · · Score: 2, Insightful

      'IBM Turns to Open Source Development.' '...we need to move to a development system that allows us much greater transparency, and a much greater awareness and cross pollination of expertise, ideas and requirements between all of the various different laboratories.' Their speaking of using an 'open source model' for internal development is what prompted the article in the first place. If they had said, 'We will be using a distributive development model, that gives wide access to the source code among our developers, but by the by, we won't be releasing the code to the public,' would there be the attention this article has got to get it on slashdot? Perhaps to complain that they aren't releasing the code; my complaint is they aren't releasing the code while still using 'open source' as a buzz word. It's either free (as in free speech), or it isn't.

  6. Seriously buzzword compliant by sjbe · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I couldn't bear to read the whole thing. Example: ...Certainly a lot of our componentization efforts, and subsequently the tooling to support those componentization efforts, are focused on the core enabling.

    I stopped reading after that. Too much consultant speak even if the content is good. And I've been a consultant for years...

    1. Re:Seriously buzzword compliant by MrAnnoyanceToYou · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Heh. Isn't IBM just practicing to become a fully consultant-based company there? That seems to be their plan:
      1. make the best software in the world using whatever tools are at hand
      2. open source it, (automatic, considering how 1 would have to be done)
      3. and support it. (of course, this is where 'profit' would normally go, but yeeah.)

      Looks like a better plan to me than other stuff.

      Just thought I'd summarize, 'cause you didn't read the whole article. :P

    2. Re:Seriously buzzword compliant by deathcloset · · Score: 1
    3. Re:Seriously buzzword compliant by timothy_m_smith · · Score: 3, Interesting

      IBM's approach is to sell you the whole thing: servers, software, and services. They'll give you a good price on one to make a profit on the others. Open Source might be a piece of the software, but rarely is it the whole thing. WebSphere, Notes/Domino, DB2 and MQSeries all generate good money for IBM. Don't confuse IBM w/Red Hat or a services-only company b/c they're not.

      When companies start an outsourcing deal w/IBM, IBM comes in and replaces all the hardware, and migrates as much of the software to their stuff that they can.

    4. Re:Seriously buzzword compliant by the+way,+what're+you · · Score: 1
      1. make the best software in the world using whatever tools are at hand
      2. open source it, (automatic, considering how 1 would have to be done)
      3. and support it. (of course, this is where 'profit' would normally go, but yeeah.)
      4. Profit !!!
      --
      example.org - powered by Linux!
  7. Microsoft's Job by Shadow+Wrought · · Score: 3, Funny
    a top down approach that IBM says could make Microsoft's Longhorn obsolete upon arrival.

    I thought it was Microsoft's job to ensure obsolescence upon delivery.

    --
    If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
    1. Re:Microsoft's Job by PalmerEldritch42 · · Score: 2, Funny
      I thought it was Microsoft's job to ensure obsolescence upon delivery.

      No, that's Debian's job. Microsoft's job is to give IT workers a job fixing all the problems.

      --
      Ceci n'est pas une sig.

      :wq!

    2. Re:Microsoft's Job by grasshoppa · · Score: 0

      Whoa...a debian stab at MS making Longhorn obsolete before arriving..

      There are levels here I can't even begin to comprehend.

      --
      Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
    3. Re:Microsoft's Job by huckda · · Score: 1

      I'll be the first to say it, "Thanks for the job Bill!!!"

      --Huck

      --
      "Just Smile and Nod." --Huck
  8. From what I see... by guardiangod · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Basically IBM has a big project that needs to be done.
    They break it down into components, and delegate these components into their labs around the world.
    Now here is the smart part- Instead of hiring REAL (as in doing it for a living) programmers in their centres to do program, they get OS community to do them instead.

    After a year, IBM collects all the parts together, assemble them, trim and fit them until they work right.


    PROFIT!!!


    Not much cost- they are genius.

    1. Re:From what I see... by MrAnnoyanceToYou · · Score: 4, Informative

      They plan on employing all those people in all those labs. They just figure that there will be massive inefficiency (and they're probably right, seeing as they saw the problem years back, apparently) if they don't manage it in a way that mimics open source. It's not a complete open sourcing of all IBM's applications he mentions. In fact, he seems to refer to it in terms of open-sourcing the codebase within the company, rather than open-sourcing to everyone. I have read somewhere around here that the same kind of thing goes on at Google.

    2. Re:From what I see... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It looks like the componentizing or modularization leads to a cleaner structure and the benefit is from that as much as it's from free labor. Microsoft doesn't do this and as a result their system structure is becoming more and more unwieldy. They find it more difficult to change things because of hidden undocumentented dependencies that even they don't know about.

    3. Re:From what I see... by njcoder · · Score: 1
      What a groundbreaking article then. I'd like to to let every one know that I'm donating all my money...

      to myself!

      Thanks for the marketting tip IBM :)

    4. Re:From what I see... by Jherek+Carnelian · · Score: 2, Interesting

      In fact, he seems to refer to it in terms of open-sourcing the codebase within the company, rather than open-sourcing to everyone. I have read somewhere around here that the same kind of thing goes on at Google.

      My first job out of college was at a small unix computer manufacturer and all of their source code - os, tools and apps - were easily accessible to anyone in the company with a workstation.

      Then I went to work for HP and could not believe that the support guys had zero access to the source code - only the engineers in the development labs did. It sure made my job harder so I quit. Since then I've learned that HP was the norm and my first job (and all the Free software I worked on during college, we didn't have no stinkin' "open source" back then) was the aberration.

      It is good to see the industry starting to finally get sensible. Now all they have to do is diving in completely and make the source available to anyone, not just inside IBM.

    5. Re:From what I see... by diegocgteleline.es · · Score: 1

      Now here is the smart part- Instead of hiring REAL (as in doing it for a living) programmers in their centres to do program, they get OS community to do them instead.

      After a year, IBM collects all the parts together, assemble them, trim and fit them until they work right.


      Do you really believe that "opensourcing" things makes it magically grow? Check openoffice, basically only paid people touchs it. IBM doesnt needs a "community" to do the job, they have enought money and they can put the prices high enought. "getting things for free" is not what moves them to opensource things.

    6. Re:From what I see... by fitten · · Score: 1

      I think we've finally found #2...

      1. Adopt OSS as your platform
      2. Get geeks around the world to write your software for you for free
      3. Profit!!!

  9. They could show their true dedication ... by CyricZ · · Score: 3, Interesting

    They could show their true dedication to open source by releasing the code behind OS/2 and AiX. While it will of course take time, effort and money on the part of both developers and lawyers, it would be an excellent show of good-faith towards the open source community. After all, if Sun can do it with Solaris, then IBM can surely do it with AiX and OS/2.

    --
    Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
    1. Re:They could show their true dedication ... by dAzED1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      oh, you mean like how they're releasing AFS next year?

      Yeah, commercial companies have to go full-on to prove they're OSS friendly...none of this half-ass crap! I can't stand companies that only give a few hundred thousand in donations to charities, instead of giving 100% of their net profits. Those bastards!

    2. Re:They could show their true dedication ... by iabervon · · Score: 1

      I doubt the open source community would, in general, particularly care about AIX or OS/2. Sun's released Solaris, and nobody seems to care particularly much aside from people who were already using it. Sun had to add a bunch of new features to Solaris 10 to get people to be at all curious. IBM's been working on new OS features, but they've been contributing them to Linux, not doing much with them in AIX. And OS/2 is almost gone at this point; their OS/2 support is primarily "we'll help you switch to Linux before we stop supporting OS/2 next year."

      It's possible that they'll open-source both of them before too long, but more to console the remaining users than to help the open-source community.

    3. Re:They could show their true dedication ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      umm, did you stop to think that maybe they don't release the things they don't have full rights to?

      making AIX code public is exactly what SCO is suing them about... I doubt they'd be willing to let IBM just up and release it all. (wait till after they lose, and then it'll be easy I guess)

      and OS/2 ? doesn't anyone remember who the other company was in the partnership to develop that OS? hint: it starts with an "M" and ends with "icrosoft"

      IBM is amazingly open for what they are. The only other companies I see throwing their proprietary source open are ones who never really had any to begin with, or ones who are going down the toilet and using it as a last ditch effort to survive.

    4. Re:They could show their true dedication ... by Amiga+Trombone · · Score: 4, Insightful

      IBM's been working on new OS features, but they've been contributing them to Linux, not doing much with them in AIX.

      I'd have to disagree with that. The improvements may not be obvious from a user perspective, but they're certainly there. For example, AIX 5.3 now supports being able to partition a single processor (Power 5 only), has various improvements in the LVM and NIM now supports installs using secure sockets. You now have the ability to force unmounts of wedged NFS filesystems without having to reboot your system. And those are just the few improvement that come to mind off the top of my head.

      I love Linux, don't get me wrong, but for high-end hardware it isn't a contest. I'd take AIX over Linux every time. Once you find your way around it (and I concede that compared to Solaris or Linux or HP-UX, etc., it is a little on the weird side), it's probably the most versatile, stable and easily managed *nix implementation out there.

    5. Re:They could show their true dedication ... by CyricZ · · Score: 1

      Yes, I did "stop to think that maybe they don't release the things they don't have full rights to". That is why I wrote in my post:

      While it will of course take time, effort and money on the part of both developers and lawyers, ...

      Do you see the part about "developers and lawyers"? Do you? Well, that suggests that I was thinking about the legal ramifications of releasing such code, as well as the possiblity that some of it would have to be removed/rewritten by developers. Please, no more cock trollery.

      --
      Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
    6. Re:They could show their true dedication ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For the last goddamn time, IBM cannot release the code to OS/2 because they don't really "own" it. it was a joint effort with Microsoft and a LOT of other companies, and contains a lot of intellectual property that IBM could never get released by their respective owners.

      As for AIX, what would open sourcing it give us that we don't already have?

    7. Re:They could show their true dedication ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      No. Microsoft own half the copyrights to OS2, and everyone-and-their-dog (The US Army, for crissake) claim to own copyrights to AIX. IBM can't open-source them.

      Wait a hundred years, though, or whenever copyrights expire by then, and the stuff will be on 'sourceforge' soon as it can be. It's safe.

    8. Re:They could show their true dedication ... by professionalfurryele · · Score: 1

      Releasing OS/2 on an Open Source license makes good business sense however. There are some real OS/2 fanatics who would love the chance to work on it and that has the potential to improove IBMs software portfolio.
      Lets not kid ourselves here Big Blue are supporting Open Source to make profit. Thats a good thing, it means IBM thinks Open Source works.

  10. open source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    IBM should open source these products:

    1. db2
    2. aix
    3. mvs/zos/s390 -- and related software
    4. purify/quantify
    5. visual age (xlc)
    6. apl2

    1. Re:open source by Jay · · Score: 1

      3. mvs/zos/s390 -- and related software

      ???

      For the love of god, WHY?

      It's 50% assembly and 50% PLI. What the hell are you going to do with it? It's not like you can port it to anything, and for customization theres user exit hooks in the code at every interesting point anyway.

      The only possible reasons I can think of are:

      a) education purposes: at least 80% of the code is recovery routines. Learn how to do it right...

      b) to resell it

      --
      You think emacs is evil?! You've never used VM's XEDIT have you?!! That's evil, baby!
    2. Re:open source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you missed WebSphere. Heck just give out the figurative PIN to their bank account.

    3. Re:open source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      7.Rational

      I had to work with rational at school, as they were saying it had BIG advantages when you were graduating with Rose on your resume.

      Then we'd see experienced teachers struggle in class demonstrations, trying to find how to do some simple things, and curse while at it, in front of 50 disgruntled students. The moto was always:
      "when/if you get it working, it's like a charm".

      then we'd counter-argue that
      -the cost is too high.
      -Several (sometimes) open-source alternatives were gaining ground on rose.
      -It's hard to take design and methodologie classes using a tool that seemingly was developped with none.

      Heh, i bet the code is as awful as the finished product, so even if hey open it, no one would dare touch it...

    4. Re:open source by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

      They should also open Visual Test since they will no longer allow you to buy a license for it.

  11. Familiar argumentation by moz25 · · Score: 1

    There is considerable merit in open source when you've got many eyeballs you can drive out bugs and security holes and flaws and fix them more efficiently.

    This is an argument commonly used in favour of open source products. It's positive to hear them coming from major commercial companies too now. Open Source has gotten a more "legit" status now that it is clearly demonstrated by IBM and Apple that commercial products can be made or based on OS. Not too long ago, a manager-type friend started inquiring about "open source"... it's generating some buzz these days.

  12. If it ain't GPL, then it ain't kosher! by v3xt0r · · Score: 0

    j00 know!?

    --
    the only permanence in existence, is the impermanence of existence.
  13. Can you say OS/2? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    C'mon. IBM is beat and has been beat since they agreed to purchase a license from Bill Gates.

    Longhorn will not be "obsolete" but may will be inferior to whatever IBM decides to release, as Windows 95 was to OS/2.

    Then again, it didn't really matter that Windows was inferior - it had pretty little windows that you could manipulate a heck of a lot easier than OS/2's Amiga like-interface that had a bit of a learning curve to manage.

    BROOKLYN

  14. AiX and OS/2 are hardly IBM's entire product line. by CyricZ · · Score: 1

    "Yeah, commercial companies have to go full-on to prove they're OSS friendly...none of this half-ass crap!"

    I hope you're aware that AiX and OS/2 are a very small portion of IBM's entire software product line. Indeed, they would be the most wise products to open source. They would offer users the ability to test and gain experience using such systems. If they experiences are good, then perhaps such people would further recommend the use of such systems in enterprise settings. This in turn may garner support for IBM's other products. And such products may require support, especially in enterprise settings. Considering that IBM is a service-oriented company, that will bode well for them.

    And then there is the reputation gain. That alone may very well exceed the costs to initially release the source to said products.

    So please, save your rhetoric and blatant misrepresentations for elsewhere. Please try to think of the big picture before you post again. Thanks.

    --
    Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
  15. Somewhat busted already... by Dink+Paisy · · Score: 2, Interesting
    From the article: "I think that managed code is a way of referring to a structured component and we've got a number of names for them ourselves."

    Aside from the interviewer not knowing what "managed code" is, I think that sums up a lot of IBM's difficulty. Everyone else does something simple, IBM does something complicated. Later in the article, Heintzman compares the Windows codebase with Lotus Notes. From the leaked source code, though, we know that the Windows codebase is very clean for its size. Complex and messy code affects every large piece of software, but Microsoft seems to have managed at least moderately well, perhaps unlike IBM.

    --

    Whoever corrects a mocker invites insult;
    whoever rebukes a wicked man incurs abuse.
    --Proverbs 9:7
    1. Re:Somewhat busted already... by hritcu · · Score: 1

      Complex and messy code affects every large piece of software, but Microsoft seems to have managed at least moderately well

      What metric are you using for this? Code indentation? Because if you were using my new "the bugs/line of code" ratio ...

      --
      If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough. (Alan Kay)
  16. Semantics don't sound right... by ComputerSlicer23 · · Score: 3, Informative
    Okay, this doesn't sound like Open Source. It sounds like they are just realizing what their own employee's knew 30 years ago....

    When I read what he is saying they want to do, it sure sounds a lot like reading Fred Brooke's "Mythical Man Month". They are realizing that writting high quality, re-usable components with good documentation is very expensive. I believe "MMM", discussed this in the very first chapter. There are two orthognal qualities (I believe re-usable, and quality documentation, but it's a really long time since I read the book) that add a factor of 3 in each direction. If you wanted both it would take 9 times as long.

    Stratigically, it makes sense to invest in creating those, if you have features that will be needed in enough different projects and areas. It sounds like they are planning on breaking down internal barriers, and providing highly re-usable, and well documented internally, and then ensuring that people know of it's existance.

    Providing the source is a good idea. Ensuring that the fixes get moved upstream is a good idea. However, this sounds like good Engineering Practices (which I suppose is what a lot of "Open Source" advocates say you get, where as "Free Software" advocates, say it's purely an ethical issue).

    It sure seems like this has little to do with "Open Source", and a lot to do with solid Engineering. It just so happens that Open Source has a lot of solid engineering behind it. It sure looks like a no brainer to re-use source you already have access to. If you are going to re-use it, it should probably be designed for that. If people who didn't write it are going to use it, it should probably be documented fairly well. Some how this seems fairly obvious, as opposed to, "we add features as we need them, to resolve some personal niche", which is the crux of "Open Source" according to CatB.

    Kirby

    1. Re:Semantics don't sound right... by joib · · Score: 1

      Yup, another thing that sounds like straight from MMM, is the emphasis on components instead of huge monolithic applications. One of Brooks central arguments was that the cost of producing a piece of software increases faster than linearly with size due to communication overhead, with the optimal team size being around 5-10. So instead of creating one huge piece of software, make many smaller components and finally just put them together to create the final app.

  17. Re:AiX and OS/2 are hardly IBM's entire product li by superpulpsicle · · Score: 1

    Aix has by far the most solid and guaranteed-to-work patching system among any OS in the market today. Among other aspects like san, device drivers, reliability... I am making my judgement after hitting deep with almost every flavor of commercial unix with the exception of SCO.

    I am still highly confused as to why IBM is pushing linux so much harder than Aix. I would however favor the merging of Aix and Linux into a single OS supported by IBM. What they are doing now makes no sense.

  18. Re:AiX and OS/2 are hardly IBM's entire product li by dAzED1 · · Score: 1

    OS/2 and AIX might only be a small portion of IBM's product line, but they're 100% of IBM's OS product line.

    reputation gain...amoung people who are Free Software Advocates?

    Don't get me wrong, I'm a very dedicated advocate myself...but I don't ask commercial companies to do things for me. I ask myself to.

    "Big picture" be damned - IBM isn't the government, and in our capitalistic society, they can't be concerned with the Greater Good as their primary drive. That they contribute to the Greater Good at all is good enough for me (well, if we have to remain capitalistic...personally, I prefer communism, which at least makes me consistent when I advocate OSS).

  19. Re:AiX and OS/2 are hardly IBM's entire product li by CyricZ · · Score: 1

    Indeed, I share the same feelings. That's not to suggest that Linux is an incapable system or anything of that sort; of course it is not. But AiX has a maturity and inherent reliability that is second to none.

    --
    Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
  20. LOL! Funny stuff! by CyricZ · · Score: 1

    "OS/2 and AIX might only be a small portion of IBM's product line, but they're 100% of IBM's OS product line."

    I hesitate to reply to such an obvious troll. Anyways, I suppose AiX and OS/2 are 100% of IBM's operating systems when you intentionally go out of your way to ignore IBM's other operating systems such as z/OS, PC-DOS, K42, OS/390, z/VM, DOS/VSE, SVS, MVT, and so on.

    --
    Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
    1. Re:LOL! Funny stuff! by dAzED1 · · Score: 1

      oh yeah, I am the troll..

      z/OS = OS/390 = MVS. Not three seperate items. Also designed for specific hardware, and not all that relevant compared to OS/2 or such.

      PC-DOS is...yeah. Ok. We've gotten past the 80's now, haven't we? Guess not, since you mention MVT, which is from the 60's. You do realize that this is 2005, right?

      K42 is already open source (and is based largely off Linux), so is irrelevant in a discussion about what they should open-source in their commercial product line.

      Not really going all that much out of my way to ignore these things in this convo, really....

  21. I hope documentation catches on by Christian+Engstrom · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Their documentation as compared to other hardware/software developers has always encouraged the user to learn about and extend the environment in which they work rather than supporting only a superficial "click here, then there" mentality.
    Digital Equipment's documentation for the OpenVMS system was also very good. For each major subject they had both a reference manual that listed things in alphabetical order, and a tutorial that gave you an introduction and explained the underlying concepts.

    And there was lots of it: the documentation for OpenVMS was at least 10 or 15 feet in the bookshelf. Absolutely great.

    It is mentioned in the article that IBM hopes that they will be able to make a contribution back by introducing some of their techniques and practices into the Open Source world. If there is one area where I really hope they succeed, it is if they were to inspire people to spend more time on documentation.

    After all, what good is a program that does exactly what you want, if you can't find out that it exists and how it works by surfing the net? If I have to download and unpack something just to see if there happens to be some more or less cryptic files that I can read to see if it was worth downloading and unpacking, the chances are very slim that I'm gonna bother. And I think many people are like me in this respect.

    --
    Christian Engström, Former Member of the European Parliament 2009-2014 for The Pirate Party, Sweden
  22. You've got to be kidding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Have you ever used IBM software? Quirky would be far too nice a description. Terrible interfaces, slow with fixes and abysmal cross vendor functionality. Though potentially powerful at times, they make you pay for it with pain.

    While more open source friendly, this is just a consulting company looking to dump developers by capitalizing on the OS communities efforts while at the same time bolstering anti sentiment towards Microsoft. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

  23. Get lost. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First of all, software is NOT an America-only thing. The people in India have as much right to make money as you do. What you call "offshoring" is what people in other parts of the world call "feeding their families".

    Second of all, many of those people made money the way tens of thousands of others did: by knowing the right people and being in the right place at the right time. Others made it the old fashioned way, by working hard. But no matter what the fruits of theirs (and ours, those of us who are "poor") go on and benefit everyone whether they are rich or poor, black or white. Noone is holding a gun to your head to use Linux or any open source software, so if you don't like the fact that people make money using it, then by all means go back to Windows or OS X.

  24. Re:AiX and OS/2 are hardly IBM's entire product li by wa1ter · · Score: 1

    uhmm, I think it's called sarcasm ;)

    --
    Sig? What's this sig thing I hear people talking about?
  25. Re:AiX and OS/2 are hardly IBM's entire product li by CyricZ · · Score: 1

    No, that was not sarcasm. It's cock trollery at its worst. Intentionally misrepresenting, if not outright lying, about IBM's product lines is not sarcasm in any way. Zealotism: yes. Trolling: yes. Cock trollery: yes. Fundamentalism: yes. Sarcasm: no.

    --
    Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
  26. No free labor by swillden · · Score: 1

    Now here is the smart part- Instead of hiring REAL (as in doing it for a living) programmers in their centres to do program, they get OS community to do them instead.

    No. IBM is not releasing its code for programmers around the world to hack on. All of the programmers working on this code are employees of IBM software development labs. The purpose is to avoid reinvention and to allows programmers in different projects to improve upon one anothers' ideas.

    AFAICT there are no plans to make this codebase available to the rest of IBM outside of Software Group, much less to the whole world. I wish they'd provide access to developers in IBM Global Services. Maybe that will happen eventually, but it doesn't seem to be part of the current plan.

    --
    Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  27. YOU get lost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have every right to express my opinion here as you do. How dare you tell me that I don't belong here because you don't agree with me. That kind of attitude is the very antithesis of freedom that is suposedly preached here.

    People in India have every right to make money. I never said they didn't. American companies should do the right thing and support the society they make money off of.

    I also don't understand why I should "go back to Windows or OS X" just becuase I don't hold your same worldview. What is with poeple like you that think others should be kicked out of the club for not agreeing. Didn't you just get through telling me that Indians have a right to make money? Don't I have a right to use Linux and preach pro-American capitalism and against offshoring of our jobs?

    1. Re:YOU get lost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't I have a right to use Linux and preach pro-American capitalism and against offshoring of our jobs?

      No, you don't. Offshoring is good for America, so if you're against it you must be a godless, freedom- hating, puppy-beating communist.

  28. Not IBM's way by Dink+Paisy · · Score: 1

    IBM does like open source in a number of places, but they don't seem to be shy about contributing themselves or hiring people who are already working on stuff they want. IBM may see open source as a way to share costs of development, but I suspect that it is more marketing position and increasing efficiency by avoiding internal politics that drives IBM to open source. IBM tries to be a good community player, and seems to be succeeding in most cases.

    --

    Whoever corrects a mocker invites insult;
    whoever rebukes a wicked man incurs abuse.
    --Proverbs 9:7
  29. Re:AiX and OS/2 are hardly IBM's entire product li by wa1ter · · Score: 1

    If you can't read sarcasm in this

    I can't stand companies that only give a few hundred thousand in donations to charities, instead of giving 100% of their net profits. Those bastards


    it's completely lost on you I fear.

    --
    Sig? What's this sig thing I hear people talking about?
  30. Re:AiX and OS/2 are hardly IBM's entire product li by CyricZ · · Score: 1

    Sometimes it's difficult to tell the intentional misrepresentation of facts from sarcasm. In this case I am quite sure that that user was being completely serious, and therefore partaking in cock trollery. Please see his post where he claims that AiX and OS/2 are the only products in IBM's operating system line.

    --
    Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
  31. YAY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    YAY, now IBM can lay off more programmers and get the laid off programmers to do their work for free.

    IBM is by far the largest and most innovative outsourcer there is.

  32. Yeah Right by timothy_m_smith · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Lets see IBM release bits of WebSphere, DB2, MQSeries or Notes to Open Source. IBM likes open source as much as it is detrimental to their competitors, but you'll be unlikely to see them open source their big moneymakers.

  33. Pedantry: IBM: good for open source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Method. It's a METHOD, dammit! You use a method to develop software.

    Methodology is the study of methods. It produces CACM and IEEE Software articles. It does not produce software.

    grumble grumble

    1. Re:Pedantry: IBM: good for open source by IainCartwright · · Score: 1
      Actually I think this usage of methodology is OK. As well as referring to the study of methods (as you correctly point out), Methodology also means:
      A body of practices, procedures, and rules used by those who work in a discipline or engage in an inquiry; a set of working methods
      http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=methodolo gy

      Thanks for making me look it up though.
  34. Re:AiX and OS/2 are hardly IBM's entire product li by dAzED1 · · Score: 1

    btw, what was I misrepresenting (since it was "blatant" and all, should be easy to point out)?

    AFS is indeed whispered to be a primary open-source candidate for next year.

  35. License? by Waldmeister · · Score: 1

    Without any details, this sounds much more like Microsoft's "Shared Source" than like being something clearly identified as F/OSS.

    I miss so important topics like the used license(s) or which software packages are available.

    If I take in mind, that Sun released OpenSolaris today, this interview sounds to IBM want's to draw attention away from that.

  36. "managed code" != "structured component" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    While it's very interesting that IBM is adopting this development approach, there is a serious problem with the interview. BetaNews asks whether IBM considers this approach to be "managed code", as Microsoft refers to it. IBM responds saying that they see "managed code" to be "structured components".

    This shows BetaNews doesn't know what "managed code" is, and that the fellow from IBM either doesn't know it himself, or that he has chosen to deliberately divert that line of questioning.

    In the MS world "managed code" refers to code that runs within the Common Language Runtime, where code benefits from garbage collection and cannot perform "unsafe" operations such as pointer arithmetic. MS is encouraging developers to write managed code as a means of improving code quality by eliminating a major source of difficult-to-identify and -fix bugs, leading to improvements in code reliability and security.

    This has nothing to do with IBM's choice to move to the new development model, but shouldn't be just shrugged off like that.

  37. Re:BENEDICT ARNOLDS OF THE OPEN SOURCE MOVEMENT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Part of the moral of this story:

    Consider what kinds of folks you respect as leaders.

    Yes, the open source movement generated some leaders-it also put some serious squeeze on aspects of corporate management that couldn't adapt. Is open source a silver bullet? No. All open source does is make it more obvious where the points of centralized control in the economy are.

  38. #3 on your list.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is kinda available.

    OS/360 and MVS up to release 3.8j are public domain (before 1989, no copyright notices = public domain in the US), and have full source code available. 3.8j is from the late 70s I think, but mainframes don't change much anyway. I got it running on the Hercules emulator, but I just followed a guide. Played around with it for awhile but couldn't get anywhere

  39. Re:Longhorn is already obsolete... by Anarchitect_in_oz · · Score: 1

    Except Longhorn is a Software Operating System.
    Mac is a phyical computing applicance.

    Its not fair to expect a parts manufacuter to be able to keep up with full widget makers, in any industry.

    --
    "Call us when the New age is old enough to drink" Beck
  40. Make Longhorn Obsolete? by EraserMouseMan · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The only people who will always have cutting edge software are those who are willing to view their software as a utility (pay monthly for it). If software isn't updated on a continual basis it is always obsolete.

    IBM's clients are big businesses (as far as their cash cow consulting services go). All of these businesses pay IBM tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars every month. The average Longhorn user isn't prepared to do that.

    So, IBM claiming that Longhorn will be obsolete as soon as it is released is only pointing out the fact that Longhorn caters to a different market than IBM's products do. Mac's next OS will be obsolete as soon as it is put out as well as about 99.999% of all other software.

    Just putting it in perspective. It's not an open source thing, it's just the way the software market works.

    1. Re:Make Longhorn Obsolete? by Chemicalscum · · Score: 1
      I think what he means by making longhorn obolete is to make it obsolete as a business desktop. I see IBM's strategy is to make Workplace2 and its Rich Client Platform (the RCP is based on Eclispse and is opens sourced) the basis of the corporate desktop. Being Java it is platform independant.

      Corporations don't need to upgrade to Longhorn as the RCP runs on existing Win XP/2000, Linux and Macs. Plugins are delivered from central servers to give the functions that are needed on a desktop "on demand" as IBM puts it. Lonhorn just becomes unnecessary.

    2. Re:Make Longhorn Obsolete? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let me get this straight. Windows users aren't going to upgrade to Longhorn because IBM has Workplace2 and RCP avaliable.

      IBM already has somewhat alternatives to Office available that run natively on Windows, I don't see how writing new ones in Java is going to be more successful.

    3. Re:Make Longhorn Obsolete? by DouglasHeintzman · · Score: 1

      I never said that Longhorn will be obsolete. I simply used Longhorn and its delays and feature degradation as an example of the complex engineering problem that software vendors face these days. We saw this coming awhile ago and decided to start moving in a different direction as a means to mitigate this increasing complexity. The obsolescence comment is an editorialization by the interviewer not IBM's opinion.

  41. Wait. What? by superdan2k · · Score: 0, Redundant

    ...approach that IBM says could make Microsoft's Longhorn obsolete upon arrival...

    You mean it's not already?

    --
    blog |
  42. Since IBM's old way hasn't worked by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

    What software product does IBM make that is a market leader? Most of their software isn't even ranked #2.

    So it makes sense for IBM try other approaches to improve their market position. It would be a mistake for the market leaders to drop their more effective processes and adopt IBM's revised techniques until IBM can prove their value in the market.

    1. Re:Since IBM's old way hasn't worked by ziggy_travesty · · Score: 1

      A few years ago, they purchased Rational Software Corporation, which was a market leader in development process software (Purify, Quantify, Rational Rose, Apex). They also make the best ada compiler ever. Rational was one of the best software companies you've never heard of. And IBM still sells their products and employs most of what was the company.

    2. Re:Since IBM's old way hasn't worked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What software product does IBM make that is a market leader? Most of their software isn't even ranked #2.

      Depending on which group of analysts you listen to, DB/2 is either the most used database, or second only to Oracle.

      WebSphere Application Server is the market leading application server, I'm pretty sure. IBM eclipsed (no pun intended) BEA some time ago.

      The WebSphere Studio line of development tools are extremely popular as well, although I'm not sure if any of them qualify as "the market leader."

      IBM's Tivoli line of Systems Management products are neck and neck with HP OpenView and CA Unicenter, last I heard.

      Lotus Notes has probably lost the overall market share leadership position to Exchange, but I'm pretty sure you'll find it's still in the top two or three.

      If you separated Software Group from the rest of IBM, you'd still have like the 3rd of 4th largest software company in the world, by revenue. IBM is doing extremely well in software these days. Much has changed since the days of OS/2.

    3. Re:Since IBM's old way hasn't worked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IBM still sells the products, but has liquidated probably 3/5 of the employees Rational had on the day the purchase was announced.

      Those left are *still* trying to parse the many IBM directives and understand just what the hell IBM wants 'em to do.

    4. Re:Since IBM's old way hasn't worked by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

      I'm well aware of IBM's purchase of Rational since it resulted in the abandonment of Rational Visual Test customers (including myself and my clients). But buying software companies is not an indication that you know how to develop software. Quite the opposite I would argue.

    5. Re:Since IBM's old way hasn't worked by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

      "WebSphere Application Server is the market leading application server, I'm pretty sure. IBM eclipsed (no pun intended) BEA some time ago."

      I guess the Application Server market is defined as Internet applications running on non-Apache web servers.

      Overall, it still looks like IBM isn't an undisputed market leader in any category and a lot of their success seems to revolve around acquisitions rather than internal development.

  43. show me the code by ahl_at_sun · · Score: 0, Redundant
    This was the best question:
    BN: Is Community Source phased in throughout every product group, or is it targeted more towards improving core IBM software technologies that are more modular in nature?
    ... and the answer was, um, vague. IBM could make this believable by putting WebSphere or DB2 under community source.
  44. A short list of IBM's contributions to Open Source by Carlos+Laviola · · Score: 4, Informative
    This list is not complete (missing are larger things like Eclipse and Apache Derby) but it clearly includes many projects that helps competitors and that IBM formerly sold. This was obtained directly from IBM's web site:

    4758 Secure Coprocessor Driver for Linux
    This project is a Linux device driver for the IBM 4758 PCI Cryptographic Coprocessor, which is a tamper-sensing and responding, programmable PCI card. It provides a highly secure subsystem in which data processing and cryptography can be performed.

    ATM on Linux
    ATM support for Linux is currently in pre-alpha stage. There is an experimental release, which supports raw ATM connections (PVCs and SVCs), IP over ATM, LAN emulation, MPOA, Arequipa, and some other goodies.

    Abstract Machine Test Utility (AMTU) for Linux
    Abstract Machine Test Utility (AMTU) is an administrative utility that checks whether the underlying protection mechanism of the hardware is being enforced. This is a requirement of the Controlled Access Protection Profile (CAPP) FTP_AMT.1.

    Ananas Project: Summary
    This is the source for Working XML, a column on developerWorks with companion project code that demonstrates the evolution of full-fledged XML applications. This is distributed under the artistic license.

    Apache HTTP Server
    The Apache project develops and maintains an open-source HTTP server for various modern desktop and server operating systems.

    BlueHoc simulator
    BlueHoc is a tool that predicts the performance of Bluetooth wireless hardware technologies. BlueHoc simulates the baseband and link layers of the Bluetooth specification.

    COIN (Common Optimization INterface)
    Developers can use Common Optimization INterface (COIN) to build optimization solutions. IBM mathematical optimization researchers opened the code they use in finding the optimal allocation of limited resources. The code has many applications in a variety of industries.

    Channel Bonding
    The Channel Bonding project works on methods to join multiple networks on Linux into a single logical network with higher bandwidth. The project team works with the Beowulf Ethernet Channel Bonding project, where bonding work began.

    Consensus prototype
    Consensus is a joint European project carried out by six companies. The project is partially funded by the European Commission. The project goal is to provide technology to support single-authoring for mobile devices. developerWorks hosts the open source implementation developed by the Consortium. Detailed information about the project is at the Consensus Project home page (http://www.consensus-online.org./

    Content Query System (CQS) Project: Summary
    Content Query System (CQS). CQS is a distributed peer-to-peer query system for the purpose of discovering content or data. XML messages are passed between systems and query "engines" are used to access the data that is being made available on the system.

    Crypto Accelerator Driver
    Device Driver Support for the IBM eServer Cryptographic Accelerator.

    Crypto Interface Library
    Generalized Interface library for the IBM eServer Cryptographic Accelerator Device Driver. Note, this is a low level api for the Specified adapter, it is not intended to be an interface which is written to by applications. Applications should use the openCryptoki PKCS#11 api for interfacing to the token.

    Dynamic Probe Class Library (DPCL)
    DPCL is an object-based C++ class library that allows tool developers and sophisticated tool users to build parallel and serial tools using a technology called dynamic instrumentation.

    Embedded IBM PowerPC 4xx Linux Support
    This project contains packages which enable add

  45. IBM - one corporation worth respect.. by Halvy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I dunno why, but IBM has ALWAYS been a company that I didn't see as a monopoly, or threat to culture, like m$.

    Remember they wouldn't crack or cowtale to gates on OS/2 (thank God!). Even though everyone suffered because of m$ since, I respect Big Blue for 'doing-the-right-thing' in not being part of the crimes of m$.

    IBM along with Apple and the Lotus Corporation (remember 123?! :) actaully preddy much single handley got the word out about how wonderful computers would be in everyones hands.

    It is therefore safe to say that we could have done without m$ crap, and infact the world would have excelled (scuse the pun) without it, instead of still waiting for LOOOOOOOOONNNNG Horned.

    Ahhh, the good'ol days of Charlie Chaplin (remember the commercials from IBM?!) http://wso.williams.edu/~dgerstei/chaplin/myscans/ ibmcharlie.gif (sorry, it was all I could find quickly :( ..the wonderful MacinTosh Desktop, and what is considered the main reason people started buying pc's in droves initially..*Lotus 123* SpreadSheet/Calc program!!

    I remember the true stories of peopel not even knowing that they actully needed a pc to run the program, they just went into the old ComputerLand stores and demanded a spanking-brand-new: *Lotus 123*!

    I remember living in Boca Raton FL during that glorious error.. and walking through one of IBM's factories there.. they were (and i'm not exagurating) nearly a mile long.. filled to the hilt with ROBOTS that were building the PC's!! It waz amazing..

    Soooo, Ibm has had to re-invent itself many times before...and that is ok, cuz that is what people (corps) do in order to stay in business.

    And now.. the OSS Communities get to not only benefit from this **Classy Company**... but get to contribute and be a part of it.. in defeating the evil dragoon.. :)

    --
    I will gladly loose all of life's battles.. in order to win the war..
    1. Re:IBM - one corporation worth respect.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Back in the day IBM used to force you, under threat of legal action, to use their own specific brand of paper. They claimed it was to maintain standards quality. I smell vendor lock-in. Has this changed? I still see IBM paper used in receipts here and it's unlikely that it's because it's cheap.

    2. Re:IBM - one corporation worth respect.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >>I dunno why, but IBM has ALWAYS been a company that I didn't see as a monopoly, or threat to culture, like m$.

      Don't kid yourself!

      In the 1980s and before IBM was the Great Satan.

      Shows how short peoples' memories are.

      IBM were one of the nastiest, monopolistic corporations you could imagine. The treated their customers like shit.

      It was partly thanks to the rise of MS that they had to change their ways.

    3. Re:IBM - one corporation worth respect.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does that mean I get free modpoints for working for them?

    4. Re:IBM - one corporation worth respect.. by Halvy · · Score: 1

      ok, I didn't say they were perfect... but even if they were nasty, it wastn' with the little guys beginning to buy pc's. I guess I just like to reminisce :)

      But please do explain how the rise of m$ helped to *straigten* them out (ie, change their ways)?

      --
      I will gladly loose all of life's battles.. in order to win the war..
  46. IBM - the golden boy now by aCapitalist · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I guess IBM hopes that everybody would just forget when they were hated like Microsoft back in the early 80s and before.

    But this is great for IBM...free labor always is. I guess there is a new breed of programmer that doesn't value their work anymore.

    Not only that, but they just help out MegaloCorp in their new "services" business model.

    I guess the days of the independent developer is all but gone. You might as well get a day job at McDonalds and code for IBM, RedHat, Sun and others for free when you get home at night......NOT!

  47. And what would you expect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Err, if they open sourced their big moneymakers, wouldn't they go out of business and then be unable to help us at all because their consultancy business was hurt by the loss of direct revenues from the licensing fees?

    No, I doubt their motives are "pure" in the sense that they're not trying to get ahead of the competition. But so long as our interests are aligned, the fact that they have financial incentive (even in terms of hurting their rivals) is precisely *why* we can trust them to help us--because IBM will do what's good for IBM. And if that's good for us, too, it's best to be quiet, take advantage of that while we can, and make sure there are contingency plans in place in case that ever stops being true.

    So I don't understand the complaint. No, it's not done out of purely altruistic motives, I suppose, but just why shouldn't we make the most of it while we can? Now if you see evidence that IBM's interests are beginning to diverge to a point where they'll start acting against OSS, by all means, gripe. Until then, doing so seems counter-productive, at best.

    1. Re:And what would you expect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "But so long as our interests are aligned, the fact that they have financial incentive (even in terms of hurting their rivals) is precisely *why* we can trust them to help us--because IBM will do what's good for IBM."

      But where's the alignment of interests? If the mutual goal is to hurt IBM's rivals, then fine. If the goal is to promote F/OSS, there is no alignment. IBM's approach is just evidence to support the idea that you can't make money without proprietary software in the mix. The proprietary software is also competing with F/OSS alternatives.

    2. Re:And what would you expect? by timothy_m_smith · · Score: 1

      I'm not griping. I'm just pointing out that this article seems to hype IBM's usage of open source, but that they don't open source everything and probably won't until their software is completely commoditized.

  48. exactly! by namekuseijin · · Score: 1

    and it only makes me uneasy to see that the /. crowd didn't give this much of a thought, given the number of replies. Just because IBM is profiting with Linux, doesn't mean they are any way better than M$...

    --
    I don't feel like it...
  49. The saviours of OSS are the OS/2 people?! by suitepotato · · Score: 1

    IBM has already proven that corporate financial amd intellectual muscle is for naught if the premise ultimately being worked is bad, so Linux and other OSS boosters should not think IBM's support is any kind of vindication. They should be very afraid.

    Why don't the OSS throngs comprehend that the same baseline common end-user base that has been known to disconnect LAN cables by RIPPING them out of the socket, shoving coffee cups into CD trays, call their company help desk to install codecs to watch porn on their company PCs, disables their AV software to speed up their machines, and so forth are not destined to adopt Linux? OS/2 Warp 4 was forty million times easier to work with and it still sucked like a 5,000 horsepower Electrolux. And it was IBM's.

    As a Linux user, I'd be happier if those Inadvertant Grim Reapers at IBM stayed as far away as possible. What's next? What other loser to Redmond shall the OSS movement hang their hopes on?

    --
    If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
  50. Sofware can be complete by akincisor · · Score: 1

    Sorry, but just because you aren't using the latest and greatest doesn't mean that it is obsolete. My father still uses MS Office 97 for example, and it has all the features he needs. He decided to not use later versions of MS Office even when they were available for free, because the old one does its job. Software or any tool only becomes obsolete when the later version does the job better. In the case of Word, thats not happened since 97, given the features that my father needs.

  51. the present and future by qaxzar · · Score: 1

    they HAVE been very succsesful with Eclipse.

    perhaps my random speculation in openSolaris article is true. This, i believe, is another sign pointing towards the apperance of openO/S2 (or perhaps commO/S2).

    1. Re:the present and future by qaxzar · · Score: 1

      and once every other major operating system is (somewhat) open source (I count OSX cause at least darwin is open). how long can m$ hold out?

  52. Punctuation error by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Once again, a story is punctuated incorrectly and reads as the exact opposite of what was intended - There is a dash missing between "approach" and "that".

    Well done Editors.

  53. Oh my God. by mcc · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Core Enabling!

    Core Enabling!

    That's absolutely beautiful! The only problem is I can't decide whether it ought to be the name of a marketing buzzword from a 10-year-old video game console, or the name of a band.

    AND NOW LADIES AND GENTLEMEN THE MOMENT YOU'VE BEEN WAITING FOR...
    CORE ENABLING.
    [epic guitar solo]

  54. [Way the hell OT] What's with the autotroll? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You know, the guy who's linking to goat.cx. How far out of the loop is he that he's still linking to a dead goat.cx mirror? Even the highest UID around here is well aware that goat.cx is dead, goatse.cx is dead, and it really takes some effort to actually *get* to Goatse.

    You're just not putting the effort in, Goatse troll.

  55. Re:AiX and OS/2 are hardly IBM's entire product li by dAzED1 · · Score: 1

    and then please read the follow-up post I make to being "called" on it.

  56. Have patience by Per+Abrahamsen · · Score: 1

    > Err, if they open sourced their big moneymakers, wouldn't they go out of business

    Not necessarily. They are already mostly a support company and the IBM name plus the fact that they developed the software will win them a majority of the contracts, even if they make the software itself free.

    I suspect we will se IBM make more and more of their software free. Just not everything at once.

    1. Re:Have patience by timothy_m_smith · · Score: 1

      Again, this is not completely true. In their last 10k, here is the breakdown of revenue for 2004:

      Services 48%
      Hardware 32%
      Software 15%

      The rest is financing and investments. Not to mentioned that their profit margins were as follows:

      Services 25%
      Hardware 30%
      Software 87%

      So, that software revenue is very profitable. Don't expect them to give away Notes, DB2, or WebSphere any time soon.

    2. Re:Have patience by professionalfurryele · · Score: 1

      As you say, it makes no sense to Open Source the big money makers this product cycle. You can bet however that Big Blue will Open source thier big money spinners as soon as it does make sense (read will make them more money). And market variation means at some point more open source release from IBM are probable.

    3. Re:Have patience by timothy_m_smith · · Score: 1

      Given that a small % of their business produces the most profit (more than their services business that everyone keeps touting), it will likely be a few product cycles until that happens.

    4. Re:Have patience by professionalfurryele · · Score: 1

      Fair point, well made. IBM is shifting towards a more service based model of operation though. That is eaier to compliment with the Open Source develoment model than it is with the proprietary model.
      Like one of the parents said, lets be patient and see how good they make on thier promise.

    5. Re:Have patience by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

      "You can bet however that Big Blue will Open source thier big money spinners as soon as it does make sense (read will make them more money)."

      You can also bet that the day it makes sense to IBM will never come. I'll bet that IBM has plans for proprietary products that they haven't even started working on yet.

      In fact, here is a great question to ask IBM executives. "Will you commit to making all new software products open source by the end of this decade?"

      I'll bet the answer will not be a simple "Yes".

    6. Re:Have patience by professionalfurryele · · Score: 1

      IBM are unlikely to have a totally Open Source catalogue. Why would they? But to suggest none of the products previously list will be Open Sourced is one heck of a prediction.
      As soon as someone else Open Sources a similar product to a proprietary product a company owns it is time to consider Open Sourcing it unless you have patents or a monopoly (I doubt IBM are going to go on a patent offensive against F/OS developers). Why, because if you don't you are missing out on developer mind share.
      I will bet IBM has plans for proprietary products for an aweful long time (read as long as they are in business). But they are a company and will do what must be done to maintain thier assets (developer IQ assets) and support thier growing support business.
      I fail to understand this 'Open Source it all' desire. I avoid proprietary software for moral reasons. I expect corporate support for my ideology based on sensible business practices. Not out of blind devotion to the cause, a company who does this wont be around to help F/OSS very long anyway.

    7. Re:Have patience by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

      "But to suggest none of the products previously list will be Open Sourced is one heck of a prediction."

      IBM refuses to open source some products like Visual Test that they no longer sell, so it's one heck of a prediction that any big money maker will be open sourced as long as it's still making money.

      "Why, because if you don't you are missing out on developer mind share."

      You're assuming that all developers care about a product being F/OSS. At least today, the vast majority of development is being done on proprietary products.

      "I avoid proprietary software for moral reasons. I expect corporate support for my ideology based on sensible business practices. "

      So if MS avoids F/OSS for sensible business practices you shouldn't complain I guess.

  57. Re:A short list of IBM's contributions to Open Sou by qaxzar · · Score: 1

    what about Eclipse? btw: Eclipse a kind of universal tool platform - an open extensible IDE for anything and nothing in particular. although i realize eclipse is not soleyan IBM producy, neither is Mozilla

  58. Re:A short list of IBM's contributions to Open Sou by qaxzar · · Score: 1

    whoops, now i see that u mentioned it in 1st paragraph. i feel stupid. sorry.

  59. Flamebait? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh, I see. Any opinion that you happen not to agree with is 'flamebait' now, is it, mister idiot fucking moderator?

    I think parent has a valid point. Anyone who isn't a hobby coder might also feel he has a point.

  60. Oh my God, it's the PHB!!! by Hasai · · Score: 1

    This Heintzman character sounds like he just climbed out of a Dilbert cartoon. ....Really, I always thought it was all a joke; I truly thought that NO-ONE would actually USE such moronic gabble-speak. Gad; this is depressing....

    --

    Regards;

    Hasai

  61. Re:Longhorn is already obsolete... by Renegrade · · Score: 1
    Except Longhorn is a Software Operating System.

    Please this correction: "Except Longhorn is a mythical Software Operating System.

    Longhorn (also known as Windows 2015 XP .NET Plus Deluxe) is just a scary story parents tell to their children to make them behave; it doesn't really exist. "If you don't go to bed right now, Longhorn will eat all your RAM and make you lag!"

  62. Mr. Heintzmann should decent back down to earth :) by stock · · Score: 1
    "
    Now that being said, there is a second part of this, and this is really borrowing from the culture of the open source community. There is a very important role in a software company like IBM for top down managed code architecture and all that kind of good stuff. But there's also a tremendous amount of potential innovation that is locked up in the heads of the front line programmers and we try to liberate that creativity and the innovative potential of all of those people. "

    Well Mr. Heintzmann gets some homework from me. He first should write a "Hello World!" program in C, C++ or Perl, etc. After successfully completing that task, he should read his article again, and think if he is still the God of OpenSource development.

    Robert

  63. Twitter: Life and times of a petulant cock-gobbler by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Twitter, you're a petulant cock-gobbling sycophant to Linux Torvaldyos! Quit taking DP from ESR and RMS's feculent cocks and why don't you try to stop sucking quite so much? Get out of your parents' basement and see the real world - maybe then you'll see how pathetic you sound, with your neverending stream of bullshit about how Microsoft is stalking you. Wasn't it you who said that Microsoft believes your insane ranting is actually a threat to them, so they PAY PEOPLE to reply to you on Slashdot? No sir, I don't get any money. I do it for the love. Someone has to go up against your paranoid whining. So get back in your cage and shut the fuck up already.