Slashdot Mirror
IBM Pushing Microsoft-Free Desktops
walterbyrd and other readers are sending along the news that IBM is partnering worldwide with Canonical/Ubuntu, Novell, and Red Hat to offer Windows-free desktop PCs pre-loaded with Lotus software and ready for customizing by local ISVs for particular markets. The head of IBM's Lotus division is quoted: "The slow adoption of Vista among businesses and budget-conscious CIOs, coupled with the proven success of a new type of Microsoft-free PC in every region, provides an extraordinary window of opportunity for Linux." One example of the cooperation: "Canonical, which sells subscription support for Ubuntu, a Linux operating system that scores high marks on usability and 'the cool factor,' will re-distribute Lotus Symphony via their repositories. Symphony 1.1 will be available through the Ubuntu repositories by the end of August."
... but can I get one without Lotus Notes too?
The 2008 will be known as the year of Lotus Notes on the desktop!
My blog
I not I'm not supposed to read the article, but when I tried to the site gives a "story not found" message.
IBM should get together with the people who created Commodore 64 and see about modifying it for a networked business environment. We already know the C64 is suitable for networked environments because people have already abandoned Vista to have lan parties on their Commodore 64s. T
I would like to die like my grandfather did - sleeping. And not screaming in terror, like his passengers.
...how do you get rid of IBM?
But of course. I can't quite imagine Ballmer with a white cat on his lap, anyway. Besides, it is just me who is destined for the true world dominance...
I would like to die like my grandfather did - sleeping. And not screaming in terror, like his passengers.
If you administer a Windows network, I don't see how you can describe yourself as 'IT'...without blushing that is.
...about that OS/2 thing.
My comments are my own, and do not represent the views of my employer, my spouse, my children, or my cats.
I didn't understand the beer analogy. Can I have a slashdotish car analogy please?
Oh goody!! My first troll!! Well - OK - being 'trolled' is like having - I dunno - Oh yes - a flat tire!.
A man spends the first half of his life accumulating stuff, the second trying to get rid of it all.
This isn't a "proprietary-free" desktop, it's a "Microsoft-free" desktop.
Surprisingly enough there ARE a few other companies that have managed to survive the Microsoft onslaught and remain in the software business.
I'd still rather have the machine gun.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
It doesn't matter. If Balmer picks up the cat, Balmer will become Blofeld. Please note that in each Bond film that he appears in, he looks different, but the cat's always there, and it's the same cat. Clearly, the cat itself is Blofeld and its spirit possesses whoever picks it up. Now, consider: do you really want Balmer turning into Blofeld?
Good, inexpensive web hosting
"Why does open source imitate more than innovate?"
Good question. We suspect the problem is that most open source software is written by programmers.
Although programmers are similar to human beings in many respects, and may even be mistaken for humans when observed briefly from a great distance or under adverse viewing conditions, controlled observations clearly prove they are distinct. Since programmers are a different species (as the term is broadly defined, since unlike other species open source programmers have never been observed to procreate -- or at least the very least we feel sorry for any researcher who might witness such an event) they tend to construct interfaces that are either incomprehensible to the human mind, or in recognition of their own limitations, construct systems that are simply a mimicry of human designed interfaces (aka "human interfaces"). Here the term "construct" is used intentionally because we cannot in good conscience use the term "design," with all that it implies in this context, as most evidence indicates programmer-constructed interfaces are unusable by human beings.
We performed several tests.
Emacs, an advanced operating system constructed by a programmer, was tested first. We requested our test subjects start emacs, write a short sentence, save a file containing the sentence, and cleanly exit the system -- all without the intervention of an open source programmer. No human test subject was able to do so. In fact, mere open source programmers were typically insufficient to complete the task: an open source programmer with a gray neck beard was often required.
We contrast emacs with Microsoft Word. The latter is not regarded as having an ideal interface, but nearly two thirds of human beings under the age of 40 who grew up in a developed Western country were able to complete the open-edit-save-exit task without the intervention of a programmer. Even marketing staff had little trouble opening the application, saving the file, and exiting; most confusion revolved around the requirement to type a short sentence, but in all honesty this wasn't the fault of the software and furthermore this was the portion of the task least likely to elicit effective guidance from the programmer.
An equivalent test with Open Office, written by open source programmers but sporting a derivative interface, returned similar results.
Next we tested the GIMP. Several graphic designers simply began to cry when placed in front of the testing terminal. Further testing was aborted on ethical grounds after one designer became physically ill. Although the results were officially recorded as "inconclusive," we remain skeptical as to the usability of the GIMP's interface by anyone other than a GIMP programmer. Similarly, we remain skeptical as to the graphic design proficiency of those programmers, but this is strictly conjecture and remains untested.
With commercial software from well established vendors we presume there is a high likelihood that one or more human beings will be responsible for the human interface design. Although further research is needed, it is possible that the absence of humans on many open source projects results in unusable or derivative interfaces. Furthermore, there may be aspects of the typical open source development process that discourage participation by humans. Again, further research is needed.