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 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.
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
Um, since when is Ubuntu a 'corporate desktop'?
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?
...how do you get rid of IBM?
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...
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?
Hardy with Compiz and advanced desktop effects is pretty damned cool. I'm getting converts daily on my university campus just from fellow geeks saying "What is that!?"
--why?
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."
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.
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?
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?
...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.
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.
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
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.
Because it breeds the thought that there are alternatives to MS software. It's easier to 'convert' someone that has an open mind.
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.
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.
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.
Even my family is just now accepting OpenOffice, ~9 months after switching. They want(ed) MS, but I wouldn't help/let them pirate it.
My brother's laptop's internet dies every 10 minutes, requiring a reboot (some, uh, 'blunt force trama' inflicted with a wall after an he had an argument with my sister), and it drives him nuts (Ethernet and wifi are both aflicted, and an external USB wifi adaptor doesn't help, either). Kubuntu's LiveCD booted and stayed connected to the internet for hours, so it's not a hardware problem, but he won't let me install it. He doesn't want to give up XP (a reinstall of that may help, but again, I won't help him pirate).
So yes, people are brainwashed.
And yes, I probably am, too. But a fanboi has a diffrent mindset from someone who resists anything diffrent for no other reason than it is different.
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.
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.
They weren't really licensing issues. They could get over the non-exclusive licensing DOS thing. That was merely shrewd dealing. IBM's real axe to grind was OS/2. The partnered with Microsoft to codevelop it. Microsoft dragged their heels and made it buggy (some say on purpose) so that it would compare poorly with Windows. This was perhaps the initial "knife the baby" experiment that was so successful it became the default Microsoft development partnership strategy. This strategy peaked with the Sendo incident. Since they succeeded so publicly in that endeavor other phone manufacturers are brilliantly reluctant to partner with them. This is why your phone probably doesn't have a waving quadcolor flag on it.
Microsoft's real problem is that they've peaked. They've maxed their desktop share at nearly 100%. Emerging markets aren't paying. All the people who are fully committed are on a subscription basis. In the server space and the High Performance Computing space there aren't going to sway anybody they haven't already. They have no route to grow except taking ownership of the hardware market and that's a serious no-no. They have a lot of powerful friends in that arena who have an implied mutual non-aggression pact: You stay out of PC hardware and we stay out of OS software. Microsoft broke this implied pact when they partnered with a company to be the OEM for a line of PCs in India, an emerging third world market where most of the growth is expected to come from in the next decade. That was a very bad idea.
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.
I'd still rather have the machine gun.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
"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.
Because their programs save files in open formats that can be used without penalty in other apps...
Thus, one person's choice of lotus symphony doesn't force you to also use the same app, you are free to use any app implementing the same standard format.
I have no issue what software other people choose to use, so long as their choice doesn't harm my freedom to choose for myself.
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!
Because companies *need* to pay someone, for liability sake (don't ask me, ask the lawyers). Would you rather companies continue to give money to Microsoft?
You are right the old saying in IT was "Nobody gets fired for buying IBM" now it's different and the new saying is "Nobody gets fired for buying Microsoft".
There ain't no such thing as proprietary standards only proprietary formats. Standards are by definition open.