Slashdot Mirror
IBM Launching an Open Desktop Solution
DJ_Maiko writes "IBM just announced their intent to release an open desktop solution which they're calling "Open Client Offering." The new offering will make it possible for big businesses to present their employees with a choice of running Linux, Macintosh or Windows software on desktop PCs, using the same underlying software code, which will cut the cost of managing Linux or Apple relative to Windows. If this project succeeds, it will make it unnecessary for companies to pay Microsoft for licenses for items that don't rely on Windows-based software. IBM plans to also roll this out in-house to 5% of their 320,000 employees worldwide. This sure seems like a promising endeavor. "
Lotus Notes, Sametime, Domino... ? It seems like 'Open' has officially been overloaded to the point of being meaningless.
"Open" has been overloaded to the point of meaningless for years, if not decades.
The Open Group, anyone?
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
IBM has been trying to convince people for years to use 'alternatives' to Windows but they always do a really bad job of saying why anyone should use the alternative and then the alternatives die a horrible drawn-out painful death in the arms of the early adopters. The only real alternatives to Windows are Linux and Apple and both of those will make much better cases to prospective adopters without any 'help' from IBM. IBM does not really want anyone to use Apple because they don't play in that space and IBM has never gone anywhere with Linux even though at one time they said they were going to switch a substantial portion of their worldwide desktops over to it, which they never did.
Apple has been selling more Macs in the last several quarters than ever before in its entire history, and been making insane profits. They also continue to develop all of their desktop and server software at an utterly bewildering pace. I don't know exactly what you're talking out of, but I have a suspicion.
Mac desktops also have pushed themselves into extremes at every corner. If I want a decently priced Mac desktop, I've got two options: iMac or MacMini. MacMini is cheap enough for sure, but it's graphics processor is a joke, and you are stuck tacking on external hard drives if the storage space is insufficient. It's really more like a laptop with the keyboard an monitor included.
The iMacs have slightly better specs (acceptable at least), but they have the darned monitor built in. Many, many people either already have a monitor and don't want to pay for an extra one hanging off of their computer, or they want the freedom to shop around an buy a non-Apple monitor.
So in reality, what I really want is a darned tower unit with some expandability and a decent graphics chipset (or at least a slot where I can buy an after market one if I want). Sure Apple makes those, but they start right at $2500.
Seriously, Apple: make us a regular old tower (you can even throw in fruity colors or whatever) and bring it in under $1000. Heck I'd take the mini specs in a bigger case any day if they'd just give me the ability to plug in a better graphics card.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
Long term Apple has to be looking at the OS market and not seeing much of a future for OS X beyond its niche status. Vista has pretty much closed the gigantic security gap, no matter how much Mac fans don't want to believe it
This remains to be seen. Even if Vista is safer than XP (it probably is), there's not a lot of evidence that says it works. I mean, the fact that you're safe for the first two weeks means essentially nothing. Crackers and exploiters aren't rushing to be first, they're trying to hold their exploits until there are enough people about to make it worthwhile. Spammers/botters/virus-writers pay cash for vulnerabilities. They're not going to exploit Vista until there are enough potential victims to make that cash well-spent.
With regards to parallels, your logic only holds if Mac sales don't increase. A company is going to lose sales if it wants you to buy parallels and Windows for $250ish to run its software. And they'll be wide open to competitors who decide to offer native solutions.
Finally, your idea that Windows and Linux will quickly catch up to OS X assume that OS X is a stationary target. Between now and Vienna, 10.5 will ship, and 10.6 as well, assuming Vienna ships on time (mid-2009). Vista is currently about equal to OS X in features and ease-of-use, but that won't be true 4 months from now, and it will be even less true 18-24 months from now.
Most IBMers (like me) live with their thinkpads joined to their hips. Do you want to try migrating 320K employees from Windows to Linux in one go? Think about organizational impact. Think about your customer base. Give some thought to the migration challenges that are illustrated in this book (of which I was the project leader)...
Linux Client Migration Cookbook, Version 2
IBM is a solutions company. A lot of us need to live (compute) within the same environments as our clients do. As more companies consider Linux on the desktop, more of our business will head that way, and consequently more IBMers will to.
So you should look at this announcement in context. This offering is a yet another clear indication that Desktop Linux is gaining market momentum, and IBM sees a need (and is making a big investment in internal transformation as well as product offerings) to be able to meet the needs of clients that are increasingly demanding more diversity in client computing solutions.
It's really amazing to see all the opinions about IBM fly by here on Slashdot... you know, how IBM only sells services, but is the second-largest software company (yes, in terms of software revenues) after Microsoft. Or how it doesn't make computers any longer, even though it's the largest server and supercomputer seller, and leading in sales of blade computers.
And that only speaks to sales misconceptions, to say nothing of whether 18 gagillion patents are evil weaponry, a defensive posture, truly valuable, a load of crap, or good for the defense of open standards... Or how it forced customers into proprietary systems in the 1960s, but hasn't End-of-Lifed those ancient architectures, or forced radical change to the systems running applications developed 30 or 40 years ago.
You can pretty much say two opposite things about IBM in any regard and have them both be true. Anyways, back to working for my dying-since-1982 east coast anachronism of a company...
Who do you get to be an expert to tell you something's not obvious? The least insightful person you can find? -J Roberts
While I agree that people aren't upgrading as often, I don't think it's ue to lack of Improved performance, rather just lack of perceived improved performance. You know... when doubling the speed of your computer meant an operation that took 8 seconds, now only takes 4 seconds, you're gonna sit-up and take notice and be motivated to plunk down another $1000 bucks for the latest machine. However, once your going from 1/8 of a second to 1/16 of second or some other insignificant time savings, then the Average Joe, just doesn't care. Of course the fact that we're increasingly working with more complex and larger data, does help push the technology. (i.e. Average Joe who used to play with his 3 Megapixel photos on his 500 MHz machine without a problem may suddenly feel the slow down when he buys that new 8 megapixel camera.) - It seems to me that it the upgrade cycle is now linked with the adoption of other technologies outside of the PC itself, than it has been in the past. Other technologies certainly don't move at the same pace as computers. If a 1 megapizel camera was $200-300 in 1997, and if the pixel count doubled every 18 months... we would be seeing 64 Megapixel cameras in that same price range.
--Aaron Greenberg
What you're missing is that you represent a very small market segment of computer saavy people without money to spend. The vast majority of consumers do not care about graphics cards and expandability - they replace computers when they're old and use them like appliances. Most software developers and engineer types who use their computer daily don't find $2500 expensive for a tool they use daily. I'm not saying that you don't represent a valid market - just that a company can't target every single market. You have to pick and choose, or you lose focus on your core business areas.
What YOU are interested in Linux for, and what IBM is interested in Linux for, are vastly different things.
IBM couldn't care less about how easy Linux is to setup for your grandmother. They like Linux as a solution to be deployed on company computers, low maintenance costs, easy administration (by paid professionals).
Whether your $5 sound card works under Linux doesn't matter one bit to IBM, or to any company that has more than a handful of machines.
As far as IBM's purposes are concerned, Linux has long been ready for use everywhere they care about. You can run Linux on all your IBM servers and workstations without problems.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
most businesses are better off with linux desktops than windows desktops. staff can run word processors, spreadsheets, email clients, web browsers and other standard applications. without the viruses, trojans, keyloggers, botnets, spamware, spyware and other malware. and the system will be locked down, so that the users can't install games, stupid screensavers and other crap that either make the system unstable or are a vector for virus/trojan infection or both.
there's also gnucash, sql ledger, and other financial applications. or Crossover Office if they really need to run MYOB or Quickbooks (dunno if they run on Wine yet).
then their office computer will be an appliance for actually doing work, rather than a toy for wasting time and fiddling with the settings.
gamers might need windows because of the huge range of games available for windows. office workers don't.