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
Ibm press release.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
This is a perfect example on why IBM stays ahead. They adapt. They went from proprietary to open, from DOS to Linux. From punch cards to computers. Despite how "old" IBM seems, they always seem to adapt, something that some tech companies refuse to do.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
The link in TFS didn't work for me (they may have fixed it by now), but here's the marketwatch article and BigBlue's press release.
Oh, and uh, WOOHOOOOOOOO!!!!!
Caveat Utilitor
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
Has a nice ring to it, don't it?
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
I guess they still need to avenge Microsoft's dropping of OS/2 back in the 90's.
Kudos to IBM and hope they'll start opening up and bundling Notes as well.
Views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the author.
I guess I should start learning linux. Maybe buy a few books to study and frequent the irc channels. It finally looks like it might have a shot at replacing Windows.
.
I stopped reading right there.
If there is anything less "cool" on this world than the corporate desktop I have yet to find it.
But I've never met any "common man" family with a linux based PC. I find it strange to hear that previous article on penetration of linux in new PCs in the UK up to 2.8%. As good as linux desktops are, I still can't quite believe that Joe Bloggs with zero knowledge will comprehend the virtues and not be seduced by the fact that almost everybody around him is running windows
As I say, it might just be "where I am". I can't recall anywhere generic selling linux based desktops here so no real surprise I don't know anybody who fits this bill.
I record my sleeptalking
Mr Gates you can't compete! Linux has opened the market on price (MID/Sub notebook). It has opened the possibility of other architectures, (MIPS etc). Is on mobile devices, where is your margin on these systems Mr Gates.
I think you answered your own question...
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
How much support does Microsoft give you for those purchase prices without paying more for additional support? Almost none? I thought so.
What parts of the system does Microsoft's support cover? Just the core OS, which is largely useless by itself? Yeah...
What does Ubuntu's support cover? Well, it's for a year, and it includes the "core" OS and all of the hundreds of applications that come with it.
How much would you pay for Windows with a year of core OS support, plus a year of support for several major third-party applicationswithout which you can't really do anything? Thousands? Perhaps tens of thousands?
Where's the problem again?
Yeah, and the answer is that he doesn't. $293 is ridiculous.
Let me be the first to point out that in addition to the cost of Windows Vista and Server, you still have to pay for support, doncha?
However, you make a good point. If the price of Linux is more than the price of Windows (not including ancillary costs like training, software licenses, longer maintenance periods during the honeymoon period, etc), why switch indeed? If you are a savvy linux admin, the switch might be more compelling to you.
If anyone marks your comment as flamebait, then they are simply bigots.
...how do you get rid of IBM?
The 2008 will be known as the year of Lotus Notes on the desktop!
and this is a good thing.... how?
Anybody want my mod points?
this is it guys, The rest is up to us.
The future is free.
NO SIG
Windows support ain't free and it's largely useless in my experience. It's either "try rebooting" or Nothing to do with us, you need to contact the third party" buck passing.
PS: Linux support isn't compulsory, the cost of the Windows license is...
No sig today...
Isn't that just how the market works? Microsoft can afford to be cheaper. Canonical is working against the fact that people don't have to *buy* Ubuntu in the first place, and community support is already available, source code is open, etc.
I work at a company that uses lotus notes, and all you say is true. We unfortunately don't maintain IMAP server, so there is unending grief. Ubuntu with Notes is like using a Ferrari to haul fertilizer.
"Piter, too, is dead."
Frankly, I'd rather see Microsoft in that position -- humbled, force-fed a fresh perspective, and one player among many -- than totally ground out of existence.
What if I do the same thing, and I do get different results?
Either the url is borked or the story no longer exists, so guessing from what we can read:
"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."
So, how I'm reading this is "The slow adoption of Vista provides an opening for Symphony to increase market share" which is a perfectly reasonable strategy for the manager of a product line. (Besides, if you don't like it, you can always download OpenOffice.)
It could also mean "The slow adoption of Vista is cutting into our hardware sales, so we are looking at alternatives to get units out the door" and shipping more copies of Symphony is a happy byproduct.
Either way, it's more new systems that are not running Winders. I don't see a downside.
This could also be read as IBM stating publicly that Vista jumped the shark. ...which is waaaay different from a bunch of geeks in Slashdot saying it.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Server Support was $881!! THAT IS MORE THAN W2K3!
They don't charge support on a per server basis(this may be a shock to you)
You can set up as many servers on your network as you like, they still only charge you $881
For an enterprise Class network you need a DNS server, AD server, File server, a mail server, database server, web server( bother internet and intranet).
There are many more to add to the list, but those are just the basics.
Compare there services.
Lower CTO. You need fewer people to admin Linux machines..or UNIX machines for that matter.
5 to 1 I believe was the ratio.
that 881 and 293 is nothing for a business. It's small potatoes.
How much is WIN2k, OS and equal support?
I question you overall effectiveness if the little of price is what you base a purchase decision on.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
So iamhigh's argument is: Canonical's support contracts are too costly and doesn't give Windows desktops/server admins any reason to switch.
His argument rests on this straw man: reduced cost is allegedly the only reason to switch to Linux. This ignores Linux's advantages such as lower hardware/software cost, access to source code and thus customizability. It also ignores the possibility of adding a Linux desktop or server for testing purposes.
Notice: He doesn't tell you how much a Windows Vista Open License costs in addition to a full support contract (!) from Microsoft or partner vendors, let alone a Windows Server 2003/2008 CAL + contract. Notice that it would be costly to him in terms of both time and resources to transition to Linux, and so he wouldn't be motivated to switch over anyway. Nowhere should a Linux evangelist ever demand that all Windows shops convert to Linux, for this reason. No one's forcing him to use Linux if Windows is working just fine, so he's mostly ranting about nothing. Worst case, he's a Microsoft evangelist.
I'm sorry, but he doesn't deserve those Insightful mods. Ironic that he predicted Flamebait mods, but as of right now no one's tagged him as such.
"We are Microsoft. You shall be assimilated. Competition is futile."
I'm sure he's currently paying Microsoft support fees per desktop and per server.
How is he NOT comparing apples and washing machines?
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
That's the point I think most people don't understand. Why you buy Vista Ultimate, it doesn't entitle you to any support. You get one or two phone calls, and you have to use them within the first 90 days of registering your software. After that you're on your own. $59 for each support request. If your computer came with Vista installed, you don't get any free support from MS, they want you to call the company who manufactured your computer. How is a company with access to the source code for windows supposed to give you proper support? At least when you pay Canonical for support, they are actually prepared to answer your questions without any additional fees, and are actually able to issue software patches against the product, as most (all??) of it is open source.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
$881 for a year of server support, versus $500 per seat for Windows 2003 Server licenses and a year of rolled-in support, plus several thousand more to renew support, plus more if you add more servers.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
So I guess we win right? The Year of Finally Relaxing is 2008.
I think this discussion stems from the fact that cannonical is in south.Africa and uses the British pound as refference, plus the cost of the work hour in commonwealth countries is really high. I'm willing to bet that cannonicals prices are way better than the same sla for windows down there or in Australia or England
NO SIG
As Bullwinkle would say, "this time for sure!".
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
Okay how many support calls do you get with Windows support. I think our current package is like four calls a year but that is for developers and not the server.
Next does the price for support go up per cal?
When you want to add more users what will the cost be?
Want to use a VM and add run more servers on the box? What will that cost?
Want to add a backup server? What about development server?
Unless you are using the entire Microsoft software stack why not move to Linux? Of course there is the added cost of retraining you to use Linux but as an Admin learning Linux is worth while if for no other reason that a good Linux Admin will find it pretty easy to move into Solaris or AIX as well as Linux.
Also frankly Linux support is optional for a Windows server it is mandatory.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Seriously? If you want a professional to do work for you, it's called "professional services", costs an arm and a leg, and only occasionally does something other than totally hose up your environment.
The "support" for most software (and even hardware) goes about as far as "is it plugged in?"
The only support I ever use is hardware support, and half the time, even with Sun, you have to tell then what part to send you.
Does anybody really sit on the phone with IBM, Sun, Microsoft, to try to troubleshoot a complex problem?
Is that really more than IBM Windows support? IBM's rather expensive, but they bring some awesome and dedicated folks to the table.
My *nix servers (Mandriva, CentOS, Ubuntu, SUSE, others) have no support purchased -- as I don't need it.
For me, Google is my friend.
Actually, Canonical is registered in the Isle of Man and headquartered in London.
Canonical's phone support is based in Canada I believe.
What you're buying is support -- i.e. a voice on the telephone and expertise to get your system running, repaired, upgraded, etc. You're not buying software, and you're certainly not buying licenses.
Canonical support, much like similar arrangements from Red Hat et al, is not on a per seat or per processor basis.
Yes, paying $293 per year for support of a single desktop may seem as exorbitant as the cost of Vista. But what if you roll out 20 machines? If you go the Vista route that's thousands just for the OS, and additional thousands or tens of thousands for the software you actually need.
But with 20 machines, your Canonical support costs are now less than $15 per machine-year. And the support contract comes with an SLA. How much does MS support cost? How much is a seat license for MS Exchange-related products?
How do these costs compare when you move from 20 systems to 100? Or 1,000?
Do you still think you can compare support costs to license costs?
Now let's see if they will also push screenshots of Lotus Symphony Microsoft-Free as well.
$293 isn't really that bad for on call support. I charge $40/hour on call for one of my long time customers -- a church with 5 PCs. Average cost for a year for them is about $2000. So yeah, the Ubuntu support is actually cheaper than Windows support in my case.
Why thanks for clearing that up. That being the case, no, I don't get why the steep prices.their competition is much cheaper
NO SIG
If you administer a Windows network, I don't see how you can describe yourself as 'IT'...without blushing that is.
why would a good sys admin need the support? our sys admin handles our debian boxes which run php/mysql/various versions of coldfusion, and even the gentoo box that the previous sys admin (idiot) set up as our DNS server without paying for any support licences...
-- Sex is the antonym of pringles. Once you pop it's time to stop.
For a single desktop, he, he's not currently paying support fees. If he wanted to put Linux on his entire network, then yeah, he'd be paying for licenses and probably support.
...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.
But if that is true why can you select a quantity of 10? And the price goes up!
Copied from website:
Desktop support (per desktop) $250 (USD)*
No comprende? Let me type that a little slower for you...
So far here inside of Big Blue, unless you're in the Research Division (like the folks in Almaden for example), you're still using Windows. So IBM may be telling IBM Global Services' customers to go sans MSFT. But for the most part IBM is still a large consumer of MSFT.
I went to Canonical and "bought" (put in cart) a year of Ubuntu Desktop Support... $293!!!! #)%}&"#^*! That's about as bad as Vista Ultimate!
Well, my impression is that if you're buying support it's because you need it, you intend to use it and you expect some compentent help - since you obviously don't need to buy support. I have to date, using every version of Windows between 3.11 and XP, never ever used support. If I did call the normal residential support, I'm expecting some scripted stuff that would help me exactly nowhere and waste my time and raise my phone bill.
Now, I haven't got a clue what that'll get you since I seem to do fine fixing stuff myself but ask yourself how much support you'd do for 300$ less all taxes, overhead and employee benefits before you'd get your paycheck. One hard issue they have to bounce around the support system a little and you can burn through that in no time. If that includes the whole desktop I'd consider it a bargian for many.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
If this ever really succeeds over time taking away Microsoft's gigantic market share in the desktop OS market, then IBM would achieve it's ULTIMATE REVENGE for the licensing issues Microsoft took advantage of way way back in the past. Revenge is a dish best served buggy and full of crashes :)
"In the kingdom where everything dies, the sky is mortal."
Yay, this is good news. This is the change of times. Its time for all users to adapt to a better future.
Love Linux and 3D (OpenGL) Linux games.
It could still be the exchange rate. On the other hand, from everything I hear their technical support is extraordinary.
I've never used it myself, opting for community support (which is frankly what drew me to Ubuntu in the first place--tightknit, friendly and polite community).
If IBM really wants to help replace Windows PCs with Linux PCs, it can do a lot more than just partner with Canonical. IBM could help fix the two biggest gaps in Linux's ability to "do what Windows does": full PDF and SWF suites that "just work".
PDF is a standard format that Adobe dominates with Acrobat. It's the favorite way for offices to send around read only documents that will have no chance of problems. Unless you send it to someone with Linux, in which case something funny can happen. Not so much in reading it, but if they do indeed want to make changes anyway. The SW for editing and managing PDF docs isn't so reliable on Linux, and not at all widely available. It's probably easy for IBM to fix that problem, because PDF availability for Linux isn't so bad, just needs some more "formalizing". Getting a brand name, but still open source, edition from IBM with support and training will help.
The real problem that needs engineering is Flash. GNU's Gnash player for SWF is all some Linux distros, like for PowerPC, have for playing YouTube and all the other Flash web content. More and more Flash is used for commercial sites, especially as Flash starts to run on mobile phones. But Gnash barely works, and often doesn't work with YouTube. IBM could really level the playing field by making enough contributions to Gnash that it "just works", even as Flash evolves and other players have to keep up with it. It takes a place like IBM to do that to Adobe's dominance without Adobe either winning or even killing the competitor. Gnash is also pretty close, so IBM's investment in it would be the finishing touches that make all the difference in corporate IT strategy decisions.
PDF and SWF are still Windows territory. With a little investment, IBM could not only make Linux a first class business platform, but also take (and deserve) credit for it under an IBM logo.
And if Novell paid a little more attention to Evolution, which competes with Outlook, the whole Desktop could be a Windows killer in the right hands.
--
make install -not war
I'm not in the Research Division and I'm using Linux exclusively. IBM internally even has a full stack based on RHEL5.2.
Sure, no workstation I have received was preloaded linux, but all the pages point to the place to download the Linux equivalent to the Windows preload.
I personally would welcome this open source collaboration client. But, IBM is going to make money by selling the server side. I'd be more on the band wagon if Domino were open sourced and made available. I'll bet if Domino and Notes were free, Microsoft would be sweating bullets.
Considering most large businesses ( which make the tech world go round ) opt to get molp type agreements with support bundled in, i don't see your point as being that valid.
The dude at home getting a single copy without support isn't what drives the industry.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Interesting that Ubuntu will make Symphony available. It is not Free Software.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotus_Symphony
Currently the Ubuntu Philosophy allows non-free software only for drivers.
http://www.ubuntu.com/community/ubuntustory/philosophy
Penny - plain text accounting
Strange. IBM got out of the PC/desktop business around three years ago & sold it to Lenovo. The fearful among their customers worry they may be playing with the idea of getting out of the server market as well, evidenced by their recent decision to license certain low-end servers to be built & sold by - you guessed it - Lenovo.
Problem is most people ( around here anyway ) don't/can't think 'enterprise' and look at things thru the eyes of a personal user or small business, neither of which are of any consequence in the grand scheme of things.
They don't fully understand the different treatment you get when you are a large/enterprise customer dropping tons of cash. It can be like night and day in many cases.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Symphony is available for Linux and Windows, with Mac OS X support announced for the first half of 2008. It is based on Eclipse Rich Client Platform from IBM Lotus Expeditor for its shell and OpenOffice.org 1.1.4 for the core office suite code.[1] OpenOffice.org version 1.1.4 was dual licensed under both the GNU Lesser General Public License and Sun's own SISSL, which allowed for entities to change the code without releasing their changes. Therefore, IBM does not have to release the source code of Symphony.
dunno why, but i feel like that is the start of the breakthrough for linux, big time.
Read radical news here
The problem with Windows experience is that Microsoft is bound and
determined to make that 10 years of Windows experience obsolete with
each new release. I can learn something on SunOS in college and apply
it again on Ubuntu Linux 20 years later.
Not only will the Linuxen share the same underlying tools but those
tools will be similar if not identical to all the other Unixen. If
nothing else they will all share the same conceptual framework.
What 10 year old or 20 year old nugget of information still serves
you in WinDOS?
Does this years version of office even look like last years?
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
IBM at the end of business today had a 174.60B market capitalization - more than HP and Dell put together and within reachable range of Microsoft's 239B. IBM's trend is up (just off the 52wk high) while Microsoft's is, well, to be kind, not. Microsoft nearly killed them -- by 1994 their value had dropped to 1/10th of what it is today. For the past twelve years however IBM's stock has been as good or better as an investment than Microsoft's. IBM's value today is more than five times what it was when Microsoft was knifing their OS/2 love child in 1990. And IBM didn't just spend 7B engineering a product so abhorrent it needs this kind of "no matter what you've heard, our product doesn't suck" kind of marketing.
I hope the tide is turning. Maybe this will help.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
It's nice that IBM is aiming for a Microsoft-free desktop. I don't even begrudge them that they are pushing their own proprietary software as part of that. But the Lotus products are simply obsolete...
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.
Windows client licenses are not free, you know. Not only do you have to pay them, but they actually expect you to count them. How dumb is that?
Really - who pays for client licenses on a file and print server? That's just stupid.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
"Once upon a time, I worked at a company that used Linux as their primary desktop OS. The interface was horrible, ugly, cluttered, and didn't follow any of the conventions of the prior OS (Windows), or of any other possible prior OS." Good for you. How about evaluating a product on its current merits instead of issues you had "once upon a time." http://download.boulder.ibm.com/ibmdl/pub/software/lotus/lotusweb/product/nd8/demo/shell_popup.html There might be a lot to dislike about Lotus Notes, but your experience with it in a bad implementation 8 years ago is not sufficient justification to karma whore by attacking it now.
While the idea of creating a Microsoft Free desktop or laptop is very good, IBM -- in its typically ham handed way -- is ruining the case by trying to use this to push its Lotus suite of products. The initiative would have taken off far better had they decided to bundle in Open Office ...
But IBM being IBM they will always believe that they know best .... "he who knows not and knows not he knows not is a ????? "
Insight into much, Influence over nothing !
That it's actually attractive enough an idea to make it the theme of an advertising campaign is even better. Perhaps "Vista free" is this year's "Fat Free" of the computing world. Imagine the Vista logo with a red circle and strike on the box of PCs, phones, printers, scanners, external media, routers and switches along with the text: "Don't worry. This product does not contain or require Windows Vista." Or maybe this nice logo.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
If this is OK with /. - we're a small brewery in Pickering Ontario. For anyone in Toronto try Al's Cask Ale at C'est What on Front St. We also sell Durham Signature Ale in Bottles @ The Beer Store(s).
A man spends the first half of his life accumulating stuff, the second trying to get rid of it all.
The advertisers of the eee pc or the new Atom netbooks don't make a big deal of the fact that there's no Windows in the box. "Like a PVR - switch it on - and it works." You are right that most people don't care to know and that is perhaps more insightful than I would have expected from your post. I would say you're very perceptive. I would expect that the lack of spyware and viruses on the PCs after six months will only be considered a pleasant bonus.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
It went the other way: "Once you get rid of IBM... how do you get rid of Microsoft."
... and we wore an onion on our belt, as was the fashion of the day, yadda yadda...
Anyway, Microsoft didn't kill IBM. They just smashed their hubris. Perhaps if IBM returns the favor we will be done with the tyranny of monopoly in IT forever. Or maybe in 17 years a scrappy reborn up and coming Microsoft will be there to remind the aging monolithic giant once again that assuming the sale only goes so far.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
my DOS command line/batch skillz still are useful
I think this depends on your needs and if you actually use support. I know a lot of people who have never called for support and probably wouldn't do it if they needed to. I'm not disputing the value, I just wouldn't assume that being aware of this would change most people's minds.
I used Linux as my primary OS for the majority of the 7 years I worked at IBM. The internal distribution is of course, based on Red Hat, though I used SUSE, Debian (and Ubuntu) as well. It sucked in the early days of the project because Notes ran under wine, rather than a native client. Now with the Eclipse platform, Notes is a "native" client and works much better. Disparaging remarks about Notes aside, the latest release was quite nice to use. I'm sure development has improved even more in the last year since I left, and it was a complete Windows replacement then.
Antitrust lawyer needs food, badly!
Sorry, all outta quarters.
Lotus Notes is a piece of shit, but I figure getting some IBM muscle behind Ubuntu can only be a good thing.
Not ready to say "Year of the Linux Desktop" yet, though.
I think the peak of laughability for me was when I discovered that they expect client licenses for all of the people who might access your web server. As if I might be willing to pay 15 billion dollars to appropriately license all of the billion people who could conceivably access my blog if it was hosted on their legendary IIS.
Google and Apache had better offers and I took 'em up on it because I'm not interested in stealing Microsoft's IP even if it is of such high quality that they can ask so much for it. That, and I don't have a loose 15B to blow on webserver software this year. ;-)
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Novell's focus right now is getting Microsoft's IP into Linux, as I said they would do when they made their legendary deal. Mono with .NET libraries and binary Codecs (embrace, extend, you know what comes next...).
Don't look for them to save you from teh evil Redmond Monster. They're a puppet now and they must dance when Ballmer pulls their strings.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Oh throw me in that briar patch, IBM! Oh wait, do you mean INSIDE IBM? Maybe I should consider another contract with them. If they'd get rid of that business herpes known as Lotus Notes, life WOULD be good...
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
..Windows Vista Open License costs in addition to a full support contract (!) from Microsoft..
Were you mooning us in the middle of that sentence? How appropriate.
Most of the stuff on
Sweet! a M$ free desktop.... time to dust off my old copy of OS/2 Warp 4!!
I've seen Symphony. It's a backlevel version of Oo that's been integrated with Notes, and, one would assume, Sametime IM which is also part of Notes.
IBM is doing some things right, but they have more to go. Take IBM ClearCase as an example. It is a source control program and their dynamic view has a Linux kernel module. The part they are doing right is, it's GPL. But it's an out of tree source, so they are supporting up to 2.6.18 while 2.6.27 is almost out. Their support note says they will evaluate and support the Enterprise distributions of Red Hat and SUSE just don't expect it to work on a newer kernel (it doesn't). Their installer looks for the specific (two) distributions they support and aborts if it doesn't recognize the distribution. Like if you install it on Fedora Core 3 instead of RedHat Enterprise Linux 4. Hopefully with this Canonical/Ubuntu partnership they will try a little harder to keep up to date and not force you to run specific distributions.
They also document that a Linux ClearCase client can't use a dynamic view to access a vob hosted on windows. That is correct, unless you realize that the kernel mvfs module's source is GPL and you have it. I have a patch http://david.fries.net/thoughts/IBM_ClearCase_mvfs_patch.phpthat adds a for loop to change \ to / (imagine that, windows returning a backslash for path separators), and it then works. So much for all the effort they put into documenting and educating users that it doesn't work.
clone. I don't really see the point of using Lotus Symphony when OpenOffice.Org does the same thing? Lotus Symphony has more bugs and is prone to crash more often than OpenOffice.org does, because Lotus Symphony is still in beta testing and is based on an experimental fork of OpenOffice.org anyway.
I mean why buy an IBM system with Linux on it with Lotus Symphony installed? You can get any brand PC that runs Linux and download Lotus Symphony from IBM's web site for free.
If IBM puts on Lotus Smartsuite for Linux or Lotus Notes for Linux, then people would have a reason for buying an IBM Windows free machine.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
And the video you linked : "Encrypted Rich-text email" woo hoo. How about HTML? Why use a standard pioneered by Microsoft http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_Text_Format?
While Notes might be great now, they sure burned a lot of bridges and that will always stand in the way of any world domination by Notes.
P.S. The original Lotus Notes collaboration tool was very nice for it's time. Too bad IBM screwed it up before they woke up.
I usually disable java in it myself, since I don't commonly use the apps that need jre. Usually when it comes to databases I aim towards the unix types. Anyone know if OOo's spreadsheet app uses java? BTW I love OOov3; it's beta 2 but pretty damn stable.
sarcasm If there were a coolness moderation I am certain your deliberate misspelling of 'the' and 'Linux' would have got you modded 5, supercool within seconds of your posting. /sarcasm
"I have downloaded hundreds and hundreds of records, why would I care if somebody downloads ours?" Robin Pecknold
"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.
Linux also saves companies money since it consumes less energy!
--- guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people ---
What do you get for your $293 worth of "desktop support"?
What level of support do you get when you buy vista ultimate?
How much does vista cost without support?
Where are the other options for buying vista support (proper support from a company with the source code and an ability to actually fix bugs, not just simple installation guide support)?
If you're going to compare the cost of ubuntu support, at least break down exactly what you get for the money, and which parts of the cost are optional (most people never call support).
Also if your staff only know windows then they are likely to be a false economy, it has been well documented that competent unix staff can take care of more systems.. So while each individual staff member may cost more, the amount you save by having less of them can often outweigh the higher wages.
Not to mention other savings they can make, the cost of the software, the cost (in time and money) of license compliance, savings on hardware as less hardware can be used to perform the same work, and older hardware can be used for long before needing replacing (often because older hardware is less power efficient (performance per watt) and thus not economical to keep running, rather than being too slow to handle the load).
Remember unix was around long before windows, and there are plenty of people with 20+ years of unix experience or more...
I have practical experience of this, having worked as both a unix admin and a windows admin, and worked in several places where a big function of my job was to steer the companies towards unix, and have saved several companies a lot of money by migrating various systems to unix (considerably more than the cost of my wages).
My advise to you, is to put in the effort to learn unix... If you become sufficiently competent you will be able to command a higher level of pay, while introducing companies to various ways of saving money they probably didn't realize existed before. Especially in smaller companies this can take you a long way. Once you become used to unix chances are you will prefer it, and use it in preference to windows anyway, and aside from that having multiple skills and the ability to learn new things is always good, because you can never guarantee what technology will be in use years from now and it's not good to be stuck in a fading niche (think of all those people who trained in wordperfect on dos).
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
But thinking from the perspective of the company...
Is it better to pay you $40/hour, or a competent unix admin $80/hour?
A good unix admin may cost more, but...
They can often get the equivalent work done in less time (and therefore more done in the same time/cost).
With competent staff and unix the hardware costs will be lower.
With unix the software costs will be lower.
The overall cost with unix is likely to be lower so it's better for the company, and the wages are better with unix so it's better for the individual (for now anyway, as use increases the wages will go up, and then drop back down as people flood into the demand)...
I would much rather the company i work for spend more on me, and less on microsoft... money going out to microsoft does not benefit me at all.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
but very limited, you should be using windows powershell, which is far more powerful but requires you to learn something new.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
IBM really ought to open up the protocols it uses (or better yet, make it use existing standard protocols), so that third party clients can be developed...
Many services these days are far more useful when you ditch the official client and use a superior third party one.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
So if I had a bad experience 3 years ago is it valid?
Given that the UI was a major revision point in a release that hit about 18 months ago, probably not.
Why on earth did it take so long for IBM to fix the biggest problem with Notes namely the UI?
I could probably offer a lot of speculation on WHY, but I certainly won't argue against the point that it took too long. That doesn't change the fact that it's happened now, though.
Does Notes still manage recurring meetings by creating 1,000 instances of the meeting? Who in their right mind even writes code like that?
If you have a meeting recurring 1000 times, yes. Who in their right mind goes to a meeting 1000 times?
It's coded like that for a very simple reason: keeping the email portion of the software behaving as an application built on top of Notes-as-a-platform. And there's a very compelling reason for that: so you can modify the behavior of your email program. Notes mail is delivered to the customer with exceptional extensibility. It's open source.
And the video you linked : "Encrypted Rich-text email" woo hoo. How about HTML?
Poor choice of words from the marketing department. The "Rich Text" in Notes has nothing whatsoever to do with Microsoft rich text. By "rich" they mean "more than just ASCII characters." You can incorporate formatted text, tables, links, images, inline attachments, and all kinds of other stuff directly into the email. And yes, it's not the only platform where you can do that.
Notes 8 actually displays HTML-based email with higher fidelity than Outlook 2007, by the way. And yes, I realize Outlook probably isn't YOUR yardstick.
While Notes might be great now, they sure burned a lot of bridges and that will always stand in the way of any world domination by Notes.
Won't argue with your point, but I will argue that it's not an evaluation of the SOFTWARE, but of the organization that produces it.
I used to work for IBM and I've worked at several places that used notes and God I hated it. The icons on the menu bar are totally useless. They might as well be alien symbols. Make a list of the top ten things you do in Lotus every day and is even one of them an icon in the menu bar? Nope. Print, how often do you do that? Frequently? Is there a printer icon? Nope. And what the hell does replicate mean anyway? I want to check my mail not clone somebody. And what a memory hog. If you're required to keep notes running all day to catch those all important emails addressed to "ALL" then forget running anything else. If we were testing software on our PCs we always had to remember to shut down notes otherwise our tests would fail for no reason. Not enough memory. Thankfully I haven't had to use it in almost 10 years now.
Actually if you have a Redhat subscription you get excellent telephone or email support on all applications as well as the OS however you are going to pay for it with the cost being determined on if you are a home or corporate user, the actual coverage and the type of hardware you are running the Redhat software on. See the following costs. For the home user you can do the support yourself if you can, but for the corporate customer a support contact is essential.
For many companies support costs are not important if the perceived value of their data exceeds the cost of hardware, software and their support. If you are the IT manager and you make the suggestion to your company that they don't need software support you are placing yourself in a very risky position because one IT issue with regard to software (OS or otherwise) even if it is not your fault and you are going to get the blame.
While I have focused on Linux support many corporations want Microsoft support if they have Microsoft OS's on some of their hardware even though the actual support may actually be (to some) quite poor.
There ain't no such thing as proprietary standards only proprietary formats. Standards are by definition open.
You're right, but those aren't the people who would pay for Ubuntu either. They'd just download it for free, and get their computer buddy to install and support it. Most people don't have a need for it. For them, Ubuntu is free, but Windows Vista Ultimate still costs $300. But the people who would pay for Ubuntu support from Canonical are the same people who would pay for support from MS. If you compare the cost of support for Windows, and the cost for support for Ubuntu, then you'll probably find out that Ubuntu ends up a lot cheaper, after just a few support calls.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
I really don't understand why people don't get it. It is not that Vista is bad (well it is but that is not the point that I am making here) it is the XP is good.
Woah, you just blew my mind. If what you say is true then XP was a major mistake because it was good software. That would mean that Microsoft only makes good software by mistake. That would also mean it was in Microsoft's best interests to make sure its software was buggy and needed replacing constantly ... woah ...
That means Windows is crappy by design. Wow. I finally get it. Bad is good. Good is bad. I totally get it.
[signature]
We have used it, and they ended up providing us with a kernel patch that resolved the issue we had, which was then included in the next official release.
Lower CTO. You need fewer people to admin Linux machines..or UNIX machines for that matter. 5 to 1 I believe was the ratio.
Actually this depends on what each of your machines are doing. In a well setup Linux environment one person can easily manage 10 to a 100+ machines. Five to seven competent Linux administrators can easily handle over a 1000+ Linux machines on a 24x7 basis. Blades or a mixture of blade and stand alone servers are normally the best way to go about this keeping in mind that you need to take into account disaster recovery of each individual machine so you want something like "Mondo Rescue" to create images of each OS on a weekly basis (no down time) for any bare metal recovery. This is incredibly easy to setup and automate. Backups can be handled by any enterprise backup solution, some can be free and others quite costly but you get what you pay for.
The more complex the environment the better the documentation has to be however too much documentation is also a bad thing. The best way for any administrator to handle a huge Linux or even Linux and Unix environment is to have some general site knowledge and be sensitive to the customer's requirements not necessarily their needs. Diplomacy is paramount when you have a huge IT environment.
There ain't no such thing as proprietary standards only proprietary formats. Standards are by definition open.
Man this place is sooo predictable.
Any discussion of Lotus brings out the trolls & haters. Look I'll say it again. If you haven't been looking at Notes 8, then you can't really complain much.
Complaining about Notes 6 or 7 or when you worked on Notes R5 10 years ago isn't a valid critique. Get over yourselves.
Besides, Outlook sucks. : )
Is there anyone here who actually uses Notes in a business environment and likes it?
davecb5620@gmail.com
How will this impact on Microsofts' bottom line. I would imagine that such news is of note in Redmond. I mean, if it's a sucess, won't the rest of the OEMs follow?
davecb5620@gmail.com
What impact will it have on the market having available an IBM PC preloaded with Linux. Is it not an endorsement of Linux and and encouragement for businesses to try it out. After all it is IBM, the originators of the Personal Computer. Doesn't it also tell us what IBM thinks of the SCO case. After all the Lawyers must have been all over the case.
davecb5620@gmail.com
"I used to work for IBM and I've worked at several places that used notes and God I hated it. The icons on the menu bar are totally useless"
What did the developers say when you told them this?
davecb5620@gmail.com
OOOo Calc does not use Java unless you embed multimedia stuff. IBM's Symphony does require Java for everything as it is a fork/port of OOo 1 to the Eclipse Rich client platforms API.
>>What 10 year old or 20 year old nugget of information still serves
you in WinDOS?
Notepad, Solitaire, and the bluescreen.
Huh?
but vbscript has been around for 10 years and isn't going anywhere. Using VBscript is probably as close as you can come to Perl/python for windows administration. Again 10 years and running. The argument that they change things too often is true, but might also be a side-effect of the drastic changes in computing during their current hay day (just look at the difference between 98 and 08).
No comprende? Let me type that a little slower for you...
Not sure about vbscript, but vba (msoffice macro language) is going away, and it's not the first time they deprecated a macro language...
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
A good sysadmin needs support when things go really bat shit crazy in a high load environment.
They probably could work the problem themselves. Our sysadmins are known for security auditing core utilities in their down time.
When you've got a business critical server that's down, you don't have time for that though, so you get a support contract just in case. When your business relies on a server to make money, a single issue resolved can be well worth the cost of a support contract.
His argument rests on this straw man: reduced cost is allegedly the only reason to switch to Linux. This ignores Linux's advantages such as lower hardware/software cost, access to source code and thus customizability.
Your random "I got a cnert-uhfuh-kay-shun" dime-a-dozen Windows admin* doesn't even know what source code is, let alone why he might want access to it.
*: That's not a comment on ALL Windows admins, some of whom are very smart people that just happen to prefer their Microsoft platforms. It's directed at the certification mill buffoons, like, say, the dumb piece of white trash that my sister married. :(
'a';DROP TABLE users; SELECT * FROM DATA WHERE name LIKE '%'... if you're reading this, it didn't work.
Is that really true? Can you use a single contract with Canonical or Red Hat to support any number of machines? That seems odd to say the least. I'm pretty sure that with Red Hat, if you don't have a support contract for the particular machine, you can't even get updates through RHN.
But with 20 machines, your Canonical support costs are now less than $15 per machine-year. And the support contract comes with an SLA. How much does MS support cost? How much is a seat license for MS Exchange-related products?
I call bullshit, this is obviously not the real world you're talking about. Canonical have to pay their support engineers you know, and supporting 20 machines definitely takes more man power (and therefore costs more) than supporting 1 machine. Even if this were true, canonical would be out off business in a very short time and then your support contract wouldn't be worth the paper its written on.
Waitaminnit... is this a new product, or the OLD Lotus Symphony 1.1? If the latter, is anyone besides me old enough to have actually USED Symphony? And do they remember there was a version 2.0? Lotus Symphony was an early attempt to use Lotus 1-2-3 spreadsheet software to have an included word processor and database (actually just a different viewer for a spreadsheet). The word processor was not up to WordStar standards. And this is something we should be cheering for Linux?
So does Lotus Notes still look and work like something that written in the 1980's by forced labor in a Soviet gulag?
Trust me, as an alternative to Microsoft, this is not something I would choose. I've been moving away from Microsoft, and now use Linux on all my computers (although I do occasionally use a Windows 2000 VM). My kids use Windows because they play a lot of games, but I am encouraging them to use Linux when applicable. However, I'm not doing this because XP is awful. XP is pretty good, but XP is on Death Row and I have no desire to use Vista and I definitely have no desire to give Microsoft any more money.
However, given a choice between Microsoft software and IBM software, I'll take Microsoft any day of the week. Nothing says "user hostile" like an IBM application.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
You and Hurricane 8* touch on what I feel. I am one of those stalwarts hanging on to SmartSuite, and only touching OpenOffice.org grudgingly in limited cases.
Aside from the non-modal InfoBox/SmartTools feature of SmartSuite, there is the very sweet functionality of Word Pro's sections/divisions management of multiple documents assembled as one. Nicely, Word Pro allows for each original document's formatting to be retained. Last time I tried in OO.o, if forced on the document a standard for the WHOLE document, changing ALL the fonts, ALL the page orientation.
The OO.o interface is "jumboey", compared to SmartSuite. I think Symphony, as used as a name, is an insult to SmartSuite, and an insult to the original Lotus Symphony product which -- when it first hit the streets long ago -- was to be a spreadsheet killer. It would merge the best of spreadsheets and database front ends. But, as time went by, 1-2-3, Quattro Pro (Uno-Dos-Tres- Quattro... get it?), and hexed cell (excel, get it?) bested Symphony, and Symphony sang its last song.
Regrettably, neither OO.o NOR the current Symphony have a credible, end-user-friendly, non-DBA, ad hoc, WYSIWYG database front end like Lotus Approach.
Astonishingly, the Open Source community is paralyzed with a mind-bogglingly astounding NIH (Not Invented Here) syndrome in that Lotus Approach's interface is NOT YET adopted. When you copy, copy from the BEST. Base, and others, are so-so. Only due to new technology-derived widgets do they beat Lotus Approach. But, as for charts, reports, forms, (but not necessarily in cross-tabs, as c/ts are Approaches weaker/est feature set), no Open Source would-be analog *i* know of is compelling.
Purportedly, IBM cannot track down all the joint patent holders previously involved with developing SmartSuite. To me, that's tragic, and disingenuous. IBM could has already known WHAT it doesn't hold patents on. They could strip out that code, then tell prospective developers, "Go get your own $6 to $50 copy of SmartSuite online or in surplus stores. Figure out in a few days (easy enough to do) what features are broken. Use new tools and links to restore the stripped functionality and report back to us. The quicker you return the cleanest possible code, the quicker we'll offer you a paying job to join a team similar to what OO.o does under Sun.
Or, IBM and Sun could merge the best of what they have in SS & OO.o, and take away from msoft a significant chunk of the market.
(Reaches for sedative...)
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
LOL. Thank you for clearing that up. I should have KNOWN that there was no original work allowed at Microsoft! ^^
But, unfortunately they all still look and behave so similar - in concepts that are so bad - that it does not make much of a practical difference.
Of course I'll never insult any project again by saying they cloned Microsoft. :D
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
Does this years version of office even look like last years?
No. Last years shit has turned white. This years is still brown and smelly.
Debian FTW
What 10 year old or 20 year old nugget of information still serves you in WinDOS?
Umm, for example:
* if problemos, reboot machine
* if still problemos, reinstall Win
Hold the power button down until the computer shuts off when Windows/Dos crashes?
Voting them all out of office, now that's change I can believe in.
"That would mean that Microsoft only makes good software by mistake."
3.1, 95, 98, XP, NT 4.0, 2000, 2003, 2008, Office, Exchange, Visual Studio, Halo, Flight Simulator - they seem to make allot of mistakes
I know!
[signature]
As you'll see if you click my username, I've gotten great mileage out of this thread and I don't mind gloating about that a little bit. So I don't mind wasting a little Karma on a trivial comment like this.
If they aren't, they should be. Sharp dealing is one thing. Outright knifing your partners is another thing entirely. Maybe "sore" is not the right word. "Cautious", "Mindful", or "Alert" might be better. One would hope for at least "Aware of history". You know about history, don't you? Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.
If you knew your cousin was a crackhead, would you let him borrow your car? If your date has three baby daddys supporting her lifestyle, are you still interested in hooking up? Then why, oh why, would you partner with Microsoft after they've treated you that way?
Help stamp out iliturcy.