IBM Threatens To Leave ISO Over OOXML Brouhaha

barnackle writes "In addition to threatening to leave certain standards organizations over the OOXML shenanigans, IBM created new guidelines for its own participation in those organizations in an attempt to pressure the ISO and ECMA to be more fair in their approval procedures."

Comments

ISO?

[ShieldW0lf]

Hmm... didn't they used to be some important international standards body at one point, before they got into the marketing business and went under?

I thought they were already gone...

Why is this news?

Re:ISO?

[ThePhilips]

For one simple reason. Gov't procurement procedures still require to purchase standard compliant ware. If there is a national (e.g. ANSI, depending on your nationality) standard, then it is must be ANSI standard compliant. If there is no national standard - then ISO standards must be checked.

We all shouldn't forget why M$ got into the standards game at all. I'm sure it was discussed before here too: one US agency said it can not renew office suit licensing deal with M$ because there is not international standard (guess which *grin* *grin*) for document formats and M$Office isn't compatible with it. M$ partner was more than just surprised and reported to Redmond to pull some strings. IIRC scandal actually erupted when they singed deal anyway without even doing proper public tender, later making up excuses that they were not aware that there are other suppliers.

Re:ISO?

[hobbit]

Why was this modded "troll"? Would you mod IBM "troll" too?

Re:ISO?

[Kneo24]

I can assure you, ISO is alive and well, and will be around for a many good years. Many different types of industries use ISO for some type of standards certification. Hell, there's an entire industry for registrars to do pre-auditing for ISO.

Re:ISO?

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought they were already gone...

Reminds me of;

"Don't you think she looks tired?"

Re:ISO?

[Wowsers]

I can assure you, ISO is alive and well, and will be around for a many good years.

What are standards needed for anyway anymore? The record companies already regularly break the "Red Book Standard" for audio CD's and sell those fake data CD's as real audio CD's.

Re:ISO?

[Kneo24]

A lot of companies conform to ISO standards for two reasons:

The first being that it brings in more money. Once you're ISO certified, people take you a little more seriously.

Secondly, it really helps companies that are disorganized with their documentation to be a whole lot more organized, which has a lot of huge benefits.

Re:ISO?

[Anonymous Coward]

I always thought they were in the business of distributing pirated software, LiveCDs and cameras...?

Re:ISO?

[Sgs-Cruz]

Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater here. ISO (and ANSI, BSI, etc.) standards are very important in basically every field of industry. Just because they fucked up bad on digital document formats doesn't mean that we don't need them to define, you know, the standard root radius of a bolt.

Re:ISO?

[Trogre]

I still wonder if this is exactly what Microsoft wanted all along.

So many IT companies purporting to adhere to ISO standard this and that, against which MS, the king of proprietary, cannot compete. Much better to pull the rug out from under them by discrediting the standards body they are accredited against.

Re:ISO?

[tyrione]

I can assure you, ISO is alive and well, and will be around for a many good years.

What are standards needed for anyway anymore? The record companies already regularly break the "Red Book Standard" for audio CD's and sell those fake data CD's as real audio CD's.

You don't work in the Materials, Mechanical, Electrical, Chemical, Geothermal, et.al fields I see.

Re:ISO?

[Skye16]

Only on the surface.

In my experience, a company who is not organized attempting to become ISO certification just slathers a lot of lipstick on a pig, and it's also my experience that the ISO auditors fall for it every damned time.

As an engineer who has to pay lip service to a few ISO standards, but is given no resources to actually fulfill the spirit of the processes, it's all a bunch of bullshit.

(CMMI is even worse - that takes a ton more effort and I've yet to see a company really do it correctly. I'm sure some of them have to exist, but most either document every nanosecond of work (and can't use it in any meaningful way) or don't document anything but still try to get through their audit with a level 3 or 4 and then stop doing it again for another 2 years until they need recertified. Christ I need a new job.)

Re:ISO?

[Anonymous Coward]

Have a clue: ISO has standards for a lot more than just computer stuff.

Re:ISO?

[digitalunity]

I'm assuming you're talking about QA/management standards like ISO 9001, 14001, 13485, TS16949, etc.

If so, you are correct. There are indeed many ISO registrars for these certifications and many of them are only in it to make money, which means giving their customers a lot of leeway when it comes to nonconformities.

At first it seems counterproductive to sacrifice your reputation for a little extra money, until you realize that many supply chain companies don't care who the registrar is and only care that the certificate exists.

The fact is that accreditation bodies for ISO registrars aren't all equally competent to assess the registrars ability to objectively conduct audits. Another common pitfall is that many companies in supply chains don't understand the relationship between accreditors and registrars, leaving a lot of customers who DO have a certificate for their quality systems in the lurch. I mentioned 13485 specifically because a lot of US registrars aren't accepted in Europe due to only being accredited by ANSI/ANAB or SCC.

As someone from a certification body, I will not be providing any opinions on specific companies. I will say however that your comments seem to indicate you're on the other end of the audits, responsible for implementing QA systems to meet ISO requirements and your company is committed to those requirements only to the extent that is required to pass the audit.

From my own personal experience, it sounds like your auditor needs to dig more during audits to see if you're company uniformly follows its own quality management system. If you received more nonconformities, your company would either provide adequate training and/or resources to meet your own quality system or would drop it entirely.

Either outcome would be beneficial for you(unless you're canned for not passing your audits(lol?)).

Re:ISO?

[PinkyDead]

Absolutely correct on the industrial stuff like child safety or structural integrity...

However, ISO has shown its weakness in the software field - and dare I say, also demonstrating their corruptibility.

I would suggest that this is because of the subjective nature of software and that generally it's a "survival of the fittest" thing resulting in more than one suitable result (of which OOXML is not one - it is the terminally ill offspring of very wealthy parents). Imagine what would happen if I where to say here that "C is better than Java" - I could start a riot.

Maybe ISO should be removed from this field - but then I'm not sure what would be the alternative. Maybe /. polls?

Re:ISO?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, we need ANSI and BSI, but ISO is a lost cause - they can go piss up a rope. ANSI works just fine for everything, even your bolts...

Re:ISO?

[tomatensaft]

Maybe /. polls?

I, for one, welcome your bright idea!

Re:Quick Question

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, you mean Lenovo ? That ain't the IBM
"Hardware Division" by a long shot

Please help

[mcgrew]

If Sun other large tech companies join them, it will do a lot more good. IRTFA (some kind soul bought me a /. subscription and you can't comment on stories that come "in the future") and part of the end of the article explains why IBM just can't leave the standards bodies. They have their own standards to push, for instance.

Re:Please help

[Anonymous Coward]

Like the EBCDIC encry^H^H^H^H^H format.

Re:that's good news

[Anonymous Coward]

First place: I got sucked off in the bathroom this morning :)

Boy's Jr. High B-ball coach, I take it?

Great, but does it really matter?

[Garrick68]

It seems to me this will have little meaning in the long run. It's been shown the ISO is deep in the pockets of M$. Do they really care what IBM thinks or does? I mean they already got their money right?

Re:Great, but does it really matter?

[jellomizer]

Well IBM is big enough to Push their own standards with or without the ISO label. So what that IBM may be able to do is invaladate ISO as a leader in International Standards Organization. If ISO label has no meaning then they become useless.

Re:Great, but does it really matter?

[WatersOfOblivion]

Last year, Microsoft had $51bn in revenue and IBM had $98bn. So if it's about money, IBM is twice as important as Microsoft.

Re:Great, but does it really matter?

[gstoddart]

It seems to me this will have little meaning in the long run. It's been shown the ISO is deep in the pockets of M$. Do they really care what IBM thinks or does? I mean they already got their money right?

Well, the cynic in me agrees with you -- I doubt IBM will follow through, and if they did, I doubt it would make much difference.

However, if people start viewing the ISO as irrelevant and just doing what a big company like Microsoft wants, then they run the risk of becoming irrelevant. That might be the kind of thing they take notice of.

I would like to see some correction to the fact that it's a standard that really only MS can implement. Rubber stamping OOXML basically just legitimizes it for governments to buy it.

Cheers

Re:Great, but does it really matter?

[hal9000(jr)]

IBM has hardly that kind of pull now a days. They are mostly a services and hardware reseller.

Re:Great, but does it really matter?

[Garrick68]

Granted IBM had more revenue but it was M$'s standard which was approved. That tells me M$ had more money to talk with.

Re:Great, but does it really matter?

[Garrick68]

However, if people start viewing the ISO as irrelevant and just doing what a big company like Microsoft wants, then they run the risk of becoming irrelevant. That might be the kind of thing they take notice of.

Isn't that already happening? Are not some governments in Europe already viewing the ISO as irrelevant?

Re:Great, but does it really matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ballmer's intern, is that you?

Re:Great, but does it really matter?

[resonance378]

What really matters is that there is no 'pistol whip' tag to explain this. As in: The ISO just got a pistol whip from IBM.

Re:Great, but does it really matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that you Bill?

Re:Great, but does it really matter?

[oh_my_080980980]

Do you even have a friggin' clue!

IBM and other raised serious objections to OOXML but OOXML was pushed forward, in violation of ISO's rules. IBM, with all it's clout, could not stop it.

More importantly the procedure that ISO had in place failed everyone. ISO violated its' own rules!

No discussions, no debates, no desents. People either approved OOXML or were forced to be silent.

ISO has been rendered usless as several countries have stated that are withdrawing from ISO and setting up their own standards body.

Re:Great, but does it really matter?

[Bryansix]

Do you know what reseller means? They don't resell anything. They make it! They make their hardware and they design and sell their own software. They also spend millions a year on research and development in many scientific fields.

Re:Great, but does it really matter?

[kalirion]

ISO has been rendered usless as several countries have stated that are withdrawing from ISO and setting up their own standards body.

Will it have hookers and blackjack ?

Re:Great, but does it really matter?

[Fujisawa Sensei]

Last year, Microsoft had $51bn in revenue and IBM had $98bn. So if it's about money, IBM is twice as important as Microsoft.

And who had more profit?

Re:Great, but does it really matter?

[Fujisawa Sensei]

It's been shown the ISO is deep in the pockets of M$

No such thing has been shown. You've bought into IBM FUD.

How do I know? Because unlike 99% of those in the open source world, I'm suspicious of *everyone* with a large financial stake in something, not just MS.

Why just the people with a large financial stake? I'm suspicious of everybody.

Re:Great, but does it really matter?

[hal9000(jr)]

Take a gander at what IBM does, numb nuts. they make some stuff, but a large part of thier business is consulting which involves reselling. Geeze.

Re:Great, but does it really matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Thus, I actually *researched* IBM's numerous OOXML claims, and found that in most cases, they were blatantly lying. It was the pro-OOXML folks that were, overall, more honest and accurate."

[many citations needed] put up or shut up, and you can remain AC, but let's see the beef.

Re:Great, but does it really matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

How do I know? Because unlike 99% of those in the open source world, I'm suspicious of *everyone* with a large financial stake in something, not just MS. Thus, I actually *researched* IBM's numerous OOXML claims, and found that in most cases, they were blatantly lying. It was the pro-OOXML folks that were, overall, more honest and accurate.

Absolute rubbish. Completely and utterly wrong.

A "standard" is **MEANT** to be something that all parties can use to achieve an end. It is meant to be all about interoperability ... so that products from any supplier can work with products from every other supplier. CDs from any manufacturer being able to play in drives from any other manufacturer is an excellent example.

OOXML is not a complete, stand alone standard. It call up a great many "sub-formats" to achieve various ends. OpenDocument is the same ... it also calls up many "sub-formats" as well.

The difference is that wherever OOXML calls up such a sub-format, it calls up a proprietary technology of Microsoft's. ActiveX, WMF, WMA, WMV, VisualBasic ... etc, etc, etc ad infinitum. Every time, the sub-format is exclusive to Microsoft, requiring royalties payable to Microsoft for its use, and in many cases Microsoft refuses to even do that much.

OpenDocument, OTOH, wherever it calls up a sub-format, it calls up another open standard. Dublin core, SVG, Javascript, Netbeans, Python, etc, etc, etc.

Just as one example ... academic institutions will not accept papers submitted in Office 2007 format because maths formulas are not in the correct standard MathML, but some Microsoft cruft instead.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathml#Other_standards

This is typical. OOXML is utterly awash with Microsoft proprietary cruft, which is used in every case instead of the open, unencumbered, available and perfectly capable open standard which should have been used for the same purpose.

OOXML is clearly designed to be a Microsoft-only format in its full extent. Oh, and BTW, that format that Office 2007 uses (.docx) ... that is not OOXML! Even Microsoft Office cannot produce ISO OOXML format.

So much for Microsoft-sponsored "standards". OOXML utterly deserves all the scorn and derision that the entire planet can muster to direct at it.

Re:Great, but does it really matter?

[fringd]

On Second thought, forget the standards.

Re:Great, but does it really matter?

[FJR1300 Rider]

Ahh, screw the whole thing.

Re:Great, but does it really matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope. Poker in the front, liquor in the back . . .

Re:Quick Question

[compro01]

That was only their desktop hardware division, which they sold to Lenovo, presumably as the margins are not very good. Their server and mainframe hardware divisions are alive and well.

Influence

[Smivs]

Surely IBM will have more influence over future ISO decisions if it remains a member. This is particularly true of a 'Big Player' like IBM who will carry a lot of clout.
'Outsiders' can be discounted far more easily as they are simply not part of the process, and could therefore be said to be irrelevant.
IBM should collaborate with other large firms (but presumably not Microsoft) to enforce due diligence in future decisions.

Re:Influence

[MobyDisk]

I don't know much about the ISO process other than what I read here on Slashdot. But from what I gathered, big companies don't "carry a lot of clout" with ISO unless they bribe other smaller companies to join and vote with them.

It seems like a case where the most disreputable company with the most money wins. IBM's only choice then is to either play the game the way Microsoft did, or to leave.

Re:Influence

[Anonymous Coward]

If the big players won't play with ISO, then ISO becomes irrelevant and irrelevant things have a way of disappearing.

One big player is not enough to keep ISO alive.

Re:Influence

[GreatBunzinni]

Surely IBM will have more influence over future ISO decisions if it remains a member.

I don't believe that's true. IBM was a part of this OOXML process and yet it was, along with Sun, barred from the portuguese technical committee. This level of corruption doesn't leave fond memories of the whole process.

Re:Influence

[jimicus]

Surely IBM will have more influence over future ISO decisions if it remains a member.

Like the influence they were able to exert over OOXML?

Re:Influence

[Anonymous Coward]

The whole problem is Sun, IBM etc are all just as corrupt and have a horrible history of manipulating the standards bodies and to there own ends, IBM having more influence is anything but a good thing. Due Diligence is about as anti IBM as you can get, or do we all forget IBM recent misdeads just because this time it is MS they are against.

Re:Quick Question

[Leafheart]

They are still one of the top service providers for big companies. Their support, SAP development, and services teams are still huge, and, IIRC the top one in USA. They do have a lot of saying in many things technical.

Re:Quick Question

[Steeltalon]

What are you talking about? This is in regards to a software standard. Lenovo is IBM's old "PC Company"... Quite different from either Systems and Technology Group or Software Group.

IBM logo in the summary looks more beautiful

[unity100]

today, dont you think ? it is to me at least.

Re:IBM logo in the summary looks more beautiful

[Captain Spam]

Ironic, too, as I've read about the Ancient Times(tm) when IBM was as reviled, if not more so, as Microsoft is today...

Re:IBM logo in the summary looks more beautiful

[Anonymous Coward]

How true: I was there back then...

It's Better Manually (slow, broken, over-sold technology)
I've Been Moved (reference to the never-ending executive shuffle)
Inherently Slow Access Method (ISAM)
Idiots Build Me

"Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM" may have been true, but a lot of people still live with the scars of implementing some of their muck.

Re:IBM logo in the summary looks more beautiful

[steelfood]

I know ever since Google came along, we have a tendency to attribute personalities and other human characteristics to companies. However, this is a very dangerous fallacy. Companies, in fact, are amoral. They are neither good nor evil. The nature of a company is to make money and to survive. Survival requires growth, so it isn't wrong to say that companies exist to make more and more money. So for them, to do right is to bring in revenue, and to do wrong is to lose revenue. That is all, no more, no less.

IBM will champion open source and open standards so long as it makes them money. It is the same with Novell and Sun. They don't contribute to open source software if the people running the show doesn't somehow think that such contributions will bring in revenue, and eventually profit. It is the same for Google. If participataing in open source or making somehow loses m

Yes, the goodwill of the people does count, but for very little. Look at Microsoft. Despite all of their actions that have antagonized people here, and even their userbase, how many people own XBoxes? Sony is another good example. How many people have Bravia televisions or own a PS3? We talk about rewarding companies who do good and voting with our wallets, but not only are we on the fringe, but at the end of the day, it doesn't matter. As long as they make a good product, a useful product, nobody really cares about what else they do.

And yes, there are humans behind the scense who run the company and decide on its direction. However, those people come and go. They are not permanent. One day, the CEO could be for open source software, and the next day, that person could be replaced by someone hostile to open source. And get this, the ones who go are usually the ones who don't make money for the company. Philanthropy has no place in a company if it can't make money.

Today, IBM works for openness now, in this instance, for this situation. And it is a "good" thing. But they do it not for the sake of "good" but because it will make them money. It isn't to say that they're not doing something "evil" at the same time, or that they won't tomorrow.

This inability for one to recognize reality for what it is is very dangerous. Call me a cynic, but if we continue to attribute "good" and "evil" to companies, we won't see what's really happening until it's too late.

Settle down now....

[mlwmohawk]

I have some friends and an ex-wife that work for IBM. While I would go as far to say that, by and large, my dealings with them have been fair an ethical, I would resist any sort of "white knight" metaphors, it is still a publicly traded company and stock holders mean more than standards.

It is only that IBM is a technically competent competitor that it *can* compete and win on a level playing field that they promote good standards.

That being said, having dealt with double dealing scum of Microsoft many times in the past, I'll take IBM any day.

Re:Settle down now....

[Da_Biz]

Kudos to those at IBM who championed this response to ISO!

Re:Settle down now....

[ClosedSource]

"It is only that IBM is a technically competent competitor that it *can* compete and win on a level playing field that they promote good standards."

Sure, that's why they were investigated by the DOJ for a decade.

The difference between IBM and MS is that IBM knew how to play the game with politicians before the investigation started. MS made the mistake of thinking they didn't need to grease any palms. They know better now.

Re:Settle down now....

[carlmenezes]

I think IBM should simply leave ISO. Its not like they're a trustworthy standards organization anymore. I also agree with the parent post...IBM is a very technically competent and much better any day than MS.

Chalk up another one for the history books : MS has the Midas touch...NOT!

Re:Settle down now....

[Anonymous Coward]

Try working for them ;)

Another 14 hour day down.. staying up late savoring the little time I do have to enjoy life left.

Sigh. at least it pays well.

Re:Settle down now....

[stevesliva]

The people who ran that IBM are dead. I guess people have not forgiven the US for electing Richard Nixon, either, but it would sound pretty weird to choose Nixon-hating as your number one reason to dislike the US.

Re:Settle down now....

[ClosedSource]

A corporation is defined by more than just who the leaders are. Corporate culture can endure for decades and is very hard to change. Many years ago IBM was known for its hand-holding approach to customers and they're still doing it today.

As far as your analogy is concerned, if the world hates the US, the actions of Bush are an excellent reason to do so.

Re:Settle down now....

[stevesliva]

As far as your analogy is concerned, if the world hates the US, the actions of Bush are an excellent reason to do so.

That was exactly my point. You'd sound like an ass whining about Nixon, and you sound like an ass whining about the IBM of the 1960s and 1970s.

"Burroughs, DEC, and Unisys just can't compete on a level playing field! IBM is a monopoly!"

Re:Ha!

[mcgrew]

Brought to you by.....IBM! Makers of bloated slow shit! OS/2, DB2, Websphere, and everything else they've ever did!

Er, you do know what IBM stands for, don't you? The "M" stands for "machines" and the "IB" doesn't stand for "Itty Bitty". IBM is primarily a hardware company. They make and have always made what's known as "big iron", i.e. mainframes, although they do and have made such diverse stuff as typewriters (their selectric was the king of the office at one time) and calculators.

Without actually googling I'd hazard a guess they made one of the top ten fastest computers in existance, and I'd bet money they're still in the top one hundred.

BTW it isn't an IBM app but it runs on their mainframes, my favorite database language is NOMAD.

Re:IBM? Didn't it used to make a PC?

[zeropointburn]

What's with all the astroturfing?
Someone with too much marketing money has a serious axe to grind with IBM.

Re:that's good news

[Anonymous Coward]

this is the second best news of the day. First place: I got sucked off in the bathroom this morning :)

Senator? Is that you?

More importantly, if some governments withdraw

[davidwr]

Some countries are already making noises about not automatically adopting ISO standards. The more countries that adopt this "a la carte" approach to ISO, the more it will weaken ISO. The more countries that adopt the a la carte approach "until such time as ISO gets its act together" the more pressure there will be on ISO to get its act together.

Re:More importantly, if some governments withdraw

[hobbit]

Screw letting it get its act together. One of the smaller standards bodies will become the de facto, and ISO's head can be placed on a pole in the public square as a reminder.

Re:More importantly, if some governments withdraw

[db32]

I think that was the whole point. Microsoft poisoned the well so they can sell bottled water.

Re:More importantly, if some governments withdraw

[hobbit]

They may have poisoned one well, but will people stop drinking well-water altogether?

Re:More importantly, if some governments withdraw

[db32]

What does it matter if they poisoned the largest well? The PHBs are going to want the "safe" alternative.

Re:More importantly, if some governments withdraw

[V!NCENT]

Almost no known company or public school ever used ODF instead of DOC when ODF was ISO standard... So much for the standards commission...

Re:More importantly, if some governments withdraw

[thermian]

I think that was the whole point. Microsoft poisoned the well so they can sell bottled water.

Well I won't want tha.. Ooh! Fizzy! I'll take three.

Re:More importantly, if some governments withdraw

[h4rm0ny]

I think that was the whole point. Microsoft poisoned the well so they can sell bottled water.

A valid point, but once the well has been poisoned, it's folly to keep drinking it. And the analogy breaks down in an important aspect - the Well let itself be poisoned in return for cash. This should be a lesson to other wells everywhere.

But I don't disagree with what you say.

Re:More importantly, if some governments withdraw

[peragrin]

So it was a wishing well, and MSFT wished for the well to poison itself?

MSFT is just that greedy. Granted so can be IBM. but IBM learned that if they adhere to standards they can not only be more profitable but are able to wiggle business away from others easier, as they aren't locked into a specific platform. It is a two way street, but that is a small price to pay for a greater chance at more business opportunities.

Re:More importantly, if some governments withdraw

[hobbit]

When the largest well is poisoned, the safe alternative is the second-largest well (AKA the largest unpoisoned well).

Re:More importantly, if some governments withdraw

[db32]

Nope because that could get poisoned too, and people are an easily frightened bunch. Your only safe bet is processed and packaged water. Are we still talking about software and standards?

Re:More importantly, if some governments withdraw

[Skye16]

I don't know, but I'm thirsty

Re:More importantly, if some governments withdraw

[hobbit]

I think so. Cause I was going to say, who's to say the bottled water isn't only expensive but also poisoned too?

Re:More importantly, if some governments withdraw

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that was the whole point. Microsoft poisoned the well so they can sell bottled water.

While that thought has (a lot of) merit, my response tends to be:

"Exactly how large an idiot do you need to be in order to buy the bottled water from the one you know poisoned the well in the first place?"

Correct. An enormously large idiot.

I ain't buying.

Re:More importantly, if some governments withdraw

[db32]

The marketing and legal departments, duh.

Re:Quick Question

[Richard Steiner]

Doesn't IBM still make IntelliStations? Lenovo is their consumer stuff. Blech. :-)

Not all as it seems

[Etrias]

A quick look over at Groklaw has a good article about the motivations here. I'd still be cautious, but it's optimistic when IBM stresses open standards as being important to them. I'm actually surprised this didn't happen sooner with the garbage of OOXML.

Re:Not all as it seems

[heritage727]

Forget to take your meds again, Darl?

Re:Not all as it seems

[level4]

So what you're saying is you're unable to separate the message from the messenger?

It doesn't matter a damn if IBM owns and operates Groklaw if the information on it is correct and stands up to scrutiny. To date, it has. So what's the problem?

In my opinion, the case of Groklaw is a great example of the public benefit of anonymous speech. If she had outed herself she might have been sued, pulled into court, lost her job, even physically harrassed. But by keeping her anonymity - and her integrity - she's been able to make a pretty big impact in the case, at least to us nerds who care about such things. She did exactly the right thing.

Names are meaningless. And even if you had it, what good what that do? What are you going to do, drive to that address, demand to see her bank statement to ensure there's no payments from IBM?

Where the information comes from is irrelevant. The quality of the information is the only thing that matters. Groklaw has stood the test of time, in my opinion, so you're doing yourself a disservice by downrating it on that basis.

Re:Not all as it seems

[Etrias]

Wow, did you totally misunderstand the meaning of what I posted. I'll have to attempt to be more clear in the future.

I do not question Groklaw as a source at all. I've found it fun to watch SCO twist in the wind and Groklaw point out the progress of the cases they're involved in. PJ has done everyone a service by being so diligent following the legal shennanigans of Darl and Co.

What I'm referring to is IBM. Maybe it's just my natural distrust of large companies, but every word I see from big business I take with a grain of salt. Yeah, it's great they are saying these things about open standards. However, given the nature of business, if offered a different business model that would allow them to make a ton of money, who's to say that IBM wouldn't do that as well. They haven't always been the friend of the small business owner.

Now what puzzles me is how, out of my original, tiny post, you perceived anything other than an informative link and also my opinion of how while I'm happy that IBM has done this, that I can still be cautious about their (IBM's) motives as a business. If you are referring to my title, I was responding to mcgrew who stated that IBM had it's own standards to push. Honestly though, did it seem like I was trashing Groklaw? 'Cause I don't see it.

Re:Not all as it seems

[Tenebrousedge]

PJ is anon? What's this fluff on Wikipedia, then?

Re:Not all as it seems

[level4]

Er, I was responding to prockcore's comment, not yours!

Unless of course you have just inadvertently outed yourself as also being behind the sockpuppet prockcore, in which case your posts turn into an ironic "hoist by your own petard" take on the reliability of going by apparent names as the deciding factor of what is trustworthy information online.

Re:Not all as it seems

[644bd346996]

I do not question Groklaw as a source at all.

That's right. You flat out rejected Groklaw as a source due to PJ's anonymity, rather than grant it any benefit of the doubt given PJ's track record. That's far more disingenuous than merely raising unfounded questions about Groklaw's corporate connections.

Re:Not all as it seems

[roguetrick]

Wow, did you totally misunderstand the meaning of nesting? He wasn't replying to you, the grandparent, but to the parent who said "I refuse to trust any website registered by proxy. As long as groklaw and PJ continue to be anonymous, the rumor that IBM owns and operates groklaw will continue to gain traction."

Re:Not all as it seems

[Etrias]

Yeah, just noticed the way my nesting is displayed is out of whack. Weirdness...

Re:Not all as it seems

[Etrias]

*sigh* Did you even look at the usernames of the two posts? Two separate IDs saying two separate things?

Most /. users don't RTFA. You didn't even bother to read my whole post.

Re:Not all as it seems

[registrar]

This thread has gotten pretty confused (yeah, I must be new here...) Ignoring who said what, there are two important issues at stake: (1) is Groklaw a good source, and (2) is IBM a good source? There is a third unimportant issue: (3) is Groklaw speaking for IBM?

The answers are: (1) yes, (2) not really, and (3) who cares.

Assume for the sake of argument that Groklaw is part of IBM. IBM ain't stupid, they understand their audience, and they know that we perceive a difference between independent information and corporate spin. They understand the benefit of preserving Groklaw as a clean source of information, so that it can be perceived as having integrity. If IBM wants to lie, they can pay an advertising agency to do it.

The point is that you can (for the time being) trust Groklaw even if they are a face of IBM, because it's in IBM's interest to keep them good.

Basically, when the facts make me look good, I would always rather somebody else tell them, even if she criticises me from time to time. If I have to feed her to keep the news coming, well that kind of sucks, but it is better to do that at arm's length than to try telling people how good I am myself.

If you desperate geeks still don't like it, the concept is "wingman."

Re:Not all as it seems

[roguetrick]

Hey, its slashdot, what do you expect!

Re:Not all as it seems

[digitalunity]

Just so you know, IBM doesn't own or operate Groklaw. I'm not sure where you got that from.

IBM contributes to ibiblio, the Groklaw host. That's not quite the same thing.

Re:Not all as it seems

[Anonymous Coward]

You aren't exactly posting under your own name either. Care to tell everyone else why they should listen to you?

It COULD Matter

[maz2331]

If a really major player leaves the organization it is a major "no confidence" vote in the organization itself.

While the official standards are a great idea, a really big player or a consortium of them can easily just create defacto standards that will have a great chance in the real-world marketplace. This is doubly true if they actually make their standards truly open, as IBM seems to advocate.

I'd say that if companies that manufacture about 10% of the market leave ISO, then it is wounded. If it hits a number like 25%, then it's basically useless.

Also, large companies pay an obscene amount in yearly dues to be part of the standards bodies. Losing that cash will sting badly.

Re:It COULD Matter

[Garrick68]

I agree with you that if a large number of companies jump ship it would hurt the ISO, but I doubt it will happen any time soon. Don't get me wrong. I'd love for it to happen but the cynic in me doesn't see it...

Re:Ha!

[Anonymous Coward]

"Without actually googling I'd hazard a guess they made one of the top ten fastest computers in existance, and I'd bet money they're still in the top one hundred."

Actually, IBM made 5/10 of fastest supercomputers according to top500... including first three positions...

Turn that around

[nine-times]

Surely IBM will have more influence over future ISO decisions if it remains a member.

And surely ISO will be able to stay more relevant if it can retain IBM as a member. Standards bodies can be discounted for more easily if "Big Players" are simply not part of the process.

If IBM were pulling out simply because they weren't getting what they wanted, then the whole thing would seem childish. But when a standards body is approving bad standards because it's being manipulated/corrupted, and attempts to clean up the corruption are not being successful, then the appropriate thing for other "big players" to do is drop support for that standards body.

Re:Turn that around

[CodeBuster]

standards body is approving bad standards because it's being manipulated/corrupted, and attempts to clean up the corruption are not being successful

Cleaning up the corruption is almost impossible because of the enormous amounts of money that are ultimately at stake in the outcome of standards board decisions. Whenever large amounts of money are concentrated around a decision making process the powers that be will attempt to capture a share of that prize for themselves by whatever means necessary (laws are of no concern to multinational corporations because laws and justice can be bought just like everything else these days). I don't presume to offer a whole solution to this problem (conflict of interest problems are always difficult to resolve) but perhaps among the best would be to de-emphasize the importance of formalized standards (i.e. crowning of winners) and instead simply provide a forum for publishing papers, maintenance of professional wikis, and discussions and let those who are interested implement these best practices as and when it suits them, perhaps with certification that their implementation satisfies a spec paper published in the forum (the RFC system is sort of like this already, but it could probably benefit from modernized and improved processes).

Re:Turn that around

[nine-times]

I don't know about de-emphasizing formal standards. Formal standards serve some pretty important purposes, which is exactly why so much money is at stake. I think it's one of those situations where something has to be done, but because it *is* so important, there are lots of people who will want to game the system. Therefore it's important to root out corruption, and keep the system clean and transparent. If you do somehow get to the point where the system is so corrupt that it can't be fixed, and the system is so corrupt that it isn't doing what it was set up to do, then you throw it out and make a new one.

You know, like a government.

Re:Turn that around

[Anonymous Coward]

Or IBM can join and support another standards organization diminishing the credibility of ISO and eventually make them irrelevant.

Say it one more time with me

[metanoia3]

BROUHAHA

Re:Say it one more time with me

[roc97007]

Ha ha ha.

Re:Say it one more time with me

[ischorr]

Wait...Wait a minute. Don't you want this doorknocker?

Re:Say it one more time with me

[roc97007]

I already have one.

you heathen, with the mod point - yes you !!

[unity100]

if you are unable to see the underlying deep meaning in a veiled statement such as the parent post, dont waste your mod points !.

this post is offtopic. not parent.

though since you have modded faultily, this post has somewhat become on-topic.

now work on this paradox you just created and prepare a paper on it until monday, 09.45 sharp. i want pie charts in appendix.

Actually, it is more Software and Services now

[sirwired]

While IBM certainly still does make enough servers to put it at the top of the quarterly lists of server vendors, they make even more selling software and services.

SirWired

Re:Actually, it is more Software and Services now

[rdejean]

IBM's Software and Services is the legacy of CEO Lou Gerstner, who in the 90's started concentrating less on moving servers out of the warehouse and more on moving money into the bank. I'd say it worked.

obligatory

[conspirator57]

Mac: But our shenanigans are cheeky and fun.
        Thorny: Yeah, his shenanigans are cruel and tragic.
        Foster: Which wouldn't make them shenanigans, at all, really.
        Mac: (Irish voice) Evil shenanigans!
        O'Hagen: I swear to God, I'll pistol whip the next guy that says 'shenanigans!'
        Mac: Hey Farva, what's the name of that restaurant you like with all the goofy shit on the walls and the mozzarella sticks?
        Farva: You mean Shenanigan's?
        Mac, Foster and Thorny: Oh, no! (Laughing) (Mac hands O'Hagen his gun.)
        Farva: You're talking about Shenanigan's, right?
        O'Hagen: Put those away!

Re:obligatory

[NotBornYesterday]

Meow.

Re:obligatory

[conspirator57]

But they're OOXML Shenanigans! they must be cruel and tragic.

Strike while the iron is hot

[Paradigm_Complex]

I don't think IBM feels like much of a 'Big Player', considering how much the ISO listened to them in regards to the OOXML stuff. If the ISO is going to act so stupid here, ignoring IBM, why should IBM expect their remarks to be considered by the ISO in the future? While it's true that MS isn't going to... influence the ISO's decisions quite so strongly on every tech-related issue as it did here (and so IBM will still have some voice) it is still a better idea to act now. If this happens again (and again and again), IBM won't have as much ground for fighting it. They'd have to justify why they didn't fight quite so hard before, and even if they make a perfectly reasonable argument (ie, your argument) the very fact they're put in that position weakens them.

IBM - and anyone else who cares to (and is in the position to) make a stance against the ISO's actions - must do it immediately and make it clear.

Re:Ha!

[zippthorne]

#s 1,2, and 3 as of June of this year according to http://www.top500.org/list/2008/06/100 [top500.org]

well

[unity100]

we are here, here and now.

Re:Ha!

[Richard Steiner]

Please... IBM's 32-bit OS/2 ran circles around Windows NT in its day (as a fine example, search for YouTube video of David Barnes demonstrating OS/2 versus NT back in the early 1990's), and I'm sure the Warp 4.5x kernel will run runs around XP, Vista, and probably also Linux and *BSD kernels on similar hardware even today. The OS/2 kernel used rings 0, 2, and 3 which was very usual for x86 code, but it also was extremely good at juggling multiple tasks and threads under load and at dynamically adjusting process/thread priorities to make the entire system smooth.

I remember some magazine doing a test of OS/2 Warp Server versus NT server sometime in the 1994/1995 timeframe, and a single-CPU Warp box trashed a 4-CPU NT box running the exact same benchmarks.

Notes is a bloated hog, yes, but OS/2? The evidence suggests otherwise.

You know you're thinking something similar.

[Aphoxema]

I think it would be best for everyone if IBM put millions of dollars for Blackwater to be their 'independent delegate' in discussing the situation with Microsoft.

Sometimes the only way to get a very level playing field is with a very big, heavy, unaccountable object.

I didn't actually hear this anywhere, I'm just trying to find some comfortable way to justify the complete and total annihilation of our good friends at Redmond. You know, besides the obvious reasons.

Acronym Overload

[lucabrasi999]

"..OOXML...IBM...ISO....ECMA"

Danger! Acronym overload!!!

Must....keep.....head.....from......exploding. (MKHFE).

Re:Acronym Overload

[Anonymous Coward]

Must....keep.....head.....from......exploding. (MKHFE).

Huh? Is that a new Mcafee product? MKHFE?

Re:Acronym Overload

[Chris Burke]

Must....keep.....head.....from......exploding. (MKHFE).

YHA! (Your Head Asplode)

Re:Ha!

[Anonymous Coward]

IBM! Makers of bloated slow shit! OS/2, DB2, Websphere, and everything else they've ever did!

You forgot clearcrap... oops, clearcase, sorry.

Re:IBM ???

[Dishevel]

I do all my thinking with core memory you insensitive clod!

Has ISO become a Bribeocracy?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know for sure, but, from what I've read recently, it seems so...and I think "bribeocracy" makes a good tag.

This can be a good move

[slashdotlurker]

If IBM joins up with major countries that are on record against this infamy (like Brazil and India) and convinces other big players like Sun to join to form a rival to ISO, this could be a good move. I daresay, smaller players like Linux vendors (except Novell) will gladly join the new organization. They should then set up rules that an improperly documented and vendor-tied standard cannot even be brought up for a vote in that new organization, let alone bribed through like this OOXML bullshit.

Re:This can be a good move

[I'm Don Giovanni]

Sounds stupid to me.
First, such an organization would clearly be in the pockets of IBM, Sun, and the Linux vendors you talk of. How would that organization have any credibility? What, anything that helps IBM, Sun and Linux and/or hurts Microsoft and Novell is automatically approved by this organization, and anything that does the opposite is rejected? That's supposed to be credible? Please...

Slashdotters seem to forget that the overwhelming majority of countries approved OOXML, and don't feel there was anything wrong about that result. IBM didn't get their way for once, so what? Fine let IBM form their own organization and let Brazil and South Africa put more credence into IBM's puppet organization than the ISO while the rest of the world laughs.

Re:Quick Question

[compro01]

They appear to be ditching those in favour of their bladecentre stuff, as they're stopping sales of them at the start of next year.

Re:IBM ???

[lowlymarine]

They are also the legitimate makers of the world's best processors, despite what Intel's marketing may claim.

Re:Quick Question

[Tenebrousedge]

It's not very accurate, and it is not very relevant to the topic at hand. Also, it is rather incendiary.

So the 'troll' mod may be undeserved, but if so only because 'flamebait' might be more accurate.

Obligitory Groklaw Plug

[CrkHead]

PJ has, as usual, her own thoughtful analysis on the announcemnt at Groklaw.

Notes...

[Anonymous Coward]

Notes they bought from Lotus, so you can't really blame the IBM software guys...

IBM can't "leave ISO"

[Osrin]

A facinating slashdot headline. IBM isn't a "member" of ISO today, so can't exactally leave. ISO is made up of national standards bodies, there is no concept of corporate membership.

Re:IBM can't "leave ISO"

[Shadowlore]

And another "fascinating" comment by someone who did not RTFA and has no knowledge of the subject.

The /. title changed it to "ISO" instead of "Standards Bodies". That said the TFA did only reference ISO and ECMA, of which IBM is in fact a member.

And ECMA is a member of ISO. So is ANSI, of which you might think IBM is part of? And you'd actually be right.

You said yourself, ISO is comprised of various national standards bodies. Who do you think comprises these bodies? Fairies? ISO is comprised of groups that IBM is a member of. Therefore is it reasonable to state that IBM as a member of several of the bodies that comprise ISO is thus a member of ISO. As such, they can actually leave the ISO by leaving the standards bodies that comprise ISO.

Furthermore nearly every national standards body is in fact incorporated or whatever their country equivalent is. As such, your assertion that "there is no concept of corporate membership" is demonstrably false. ANSI is a not-for-profit U.S. corporation, and is a member of ISO.

QED.

Devil's Advocate

[magus_melchior]

While I do think that IBM leaving ISO in protest would be a good thing overall for both ISO and IBM, I can't help but think that Microsoft will use this, as always, as a marketing ploy. In fact, I suspect they'll step up their rants against IBM and Sun.

"Look at IBM! Now we know they were the ones pushing ODF, and not us pushing Office on ISO!"

The other problem I see with IBM leaving ISO and succeeding in bringing other companies with it, is that now Microsoft has a very recognizable, international standards group under its heel and will probably monkey with software standards with impunity (first possible agenda: eliminate ODF as defunct). This will backfire on them in the long run, but keep in mind that Microsoft has historically favored short-term benefits for itself.

no.

[unity100]

it tells you ms is more experienced in doing dirty footwork than ibm is.

and we all know that from the stories of last 2 years on slashdot, even if not our own experiences, though ms fanbois may disagree.

Re:no.

[Locklin]

it tells you ms is more experienced in doing dirty footwork than ibm is.

I'll send you an invoice for the keyboard/monitor cleaning.

Re:no.

[SatanicPuppy]

No one is more experienced at doing dirty footwork than IBM; they set that industry standard along with hundreds of others. That's what made the SCO thing so damn funny, and look at the outcome there...They didn't just not lose, they annihilated the poor bastards. Now remember who was using their money to prop up SCO? Microsoft. This is an old feud.

No, the reason IBM didn't blow a ton of money on it is because they had nothing to lose. Their desktop suite is a hobby project, whereas Microsoft's is their life blood. Now IBM is throwing their weight around, and may end up getting to eat their cake and have it too, all for a piddly outlay of cash.

Who looks smart now?

Re:no.

[plover]

Ha!

IBM invented FUD. I've seen them playing hardball, and they were once so good at it that they used to manipulate the outcome of the World Series of Manipulation. IBM has simply learned that FUD could get you so far and no further, and now there's more to be gained by being honest (or at least more honest than Microsoft.)

Re:no.

[gbjbaanb]

and they were once so good

I prefer to think they were so good at it, even they were ashamed by themselves and turned it round.

Some court case and anti-trust breakup thing might have had a hand in it too.

Re:no.

[LarsG]

ms is more experienced in doing dirty footwork than ibm

+1 funny

Look up the origins of the expression "FUD" to understand why.

Re:no.

[GuldKalle]

That's just what they wanted you to think :)

Re:IBM ???

[unity100]

they have double the revenue ms has. so ?

Important to note

[Anonymous Coward]

That the words "brouhaha" and "shenanigans" are not used enough.

If IBM gets its way...

[grizdog]

maybe Microsoft will threaten to leave. Now that would be entertaining.

You fell for PR.

[Anonymous Coward]

Those "fastest Computers" were just for PR. Meaning, those projects got unlimited budgets and no red tape - I've been there.

Try again.

Re:You fell for PR.

[Anonymous Coward]

So, their PR works? Can't be poorly spent then, can it?

You fell for the idea that PR isn't worth anything.

Try again.

(Anon, because why wrestle with a pig when I can has, too!)

Re:that's good news

[Anonymous Coward]

Senator? Is that you?

It's either him, or George Michael.

Re:IBM? Didn't it used to make a PC?

[Eternauta3k]

What would be the point? I can't think of any products IBM sells that a slashdot reader would want to buy. Thus, no commercial benefit in bashing IBM here.

Re:Ha!

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, I believe you're incorrect.

IBM is primarily a services company now. Yes, they still have some branded hardware but the bulk of their revenues comes from services.

Cheers

MS investigate for 20 years

[Anonymous Coward]

and STILL not obeying the courts.

I think MS wins the "dirty little shitbag" contest.

PS as for MS using IBM's leaving as a stick to beat them with, when MS has shit in the pool, stop playing in it. m'kay?

Not any longer

[Anonymous Coward]

While the "M" in "IBM" stands for machines, the company (of which I'm an employee) has been moving away from hardware as a core product toward high-margin software & services, which now comprise 54% of the company's business. The hardware is important, because the different parts of the business feed each other. For instance, Microelectronics exists to ensure state-of-the-art chip access for server products which allows complete turnkey service solutions for many customers and provides a platform for new software sales. However, the revenue is now more than half from software and services and this will continue to grow.

Re:Ha!

[Anonymous Coward]

You obviously don't know what you're talking about. OS/2 was an *excellent* operating system. I admit that the 1.x versions were lacking, but that is common for a new OS. Versions 2.1 and later were certainly not bloated, nor slow. This was a preemtive multitasking operating system with a full graphical shell that ran decently in 8MB of RAM, and ran *very* well in 16MB of RAM. It ran Windows 3.1 applications in a better environment than Windows 3.1 itself (3.1 ran on top of DOS). Yes, the OS was bigger than the Windows/DOS combo. Yes, it did require more resources than Windows/DOS, but that alone does not make it bloated. Windows/DOS was nothing more than a task switching OS. The cooperative multitasking it provided was completely useless. I used OS/2 from 1993 to around 1997 (Warp 4 being the last version). It was an extremely stable OS, and was a pleasure to use. If market share had been decided on technical merits alone, Windows of all flavors would have been many notches below OS/2 on the list. Alas, IBM didn't make a ton of deals with hardware manufacturers to practically give them OS/2 in exchange for not allowing any other OS to be sold on the PCs they sold (for obvious reasons--they were competitors to those manufacturers). Microsoft built its monopoly via those type of agreements with hardware vendors, and that is why we are where we are today.

BTW, there is no need to "educate" me by pointing out that in the old days IBM was just as bad as Microsoft in this regard. I am aware of the anticompetetive practices IBM has done in the past, and would not be surprised to hear about current things they might be doing in that regard. They are a large corporation, after all. And big money provides many people in a business with opportunity to misuse the power it provides. My point was that OS/2 did not "enjoy" the marketshare provided to Windows that was due to this kind of shady bundling deal.

Also, DB2 is no slouch in the database market. It performs quite well in comparison to other RDBMs. All RDBMs are fairly complicated, but I don't think calling DB2 "bloated" is an accurate statement.

I have no experience with Websphere, so I won't comment on that. I also won't argue that IBM never produced any slow or bloated software -- because they have. But to say "OS/2, DB2, Websphere, and everything else they've ever did" were slow and bloated is just making an ignorant statement.

Re:Ha!

[Anonymous Coward]

Er, you do know what IBM stands for, don't you? The "M" stands for "machines" and the "IB" doesn't stand for "Itty Bitty". IBM is primarily a hardware company.

Let's go to the discoteque, they have this hot "DJ" playing Afrika Bambaata hiphop music. Afterwards I'll show you my Modula II books and we can listen to Abba's latest album.

Re:Quick Question

[roc97007]

> not sure why that got modded Troll... it is true they dumped their printer and computer divisions to china.

Desktop and laptop computer divisions. IBM has four server lines -- mainframe, Intel, and two based on the Power architecture, plus storage and backup peripherals.

I'm also beginning to suspect astroturfing.

Re:IBM ???

[gbjbaanb]

so its not reliant on a bloated OS that no-one wants anymore, not even MS as they're busy thinning XP down so it runs on subnotebooks and MIDs.

If Linux gets mnore of a foothold, and Google gets more users for Android/smartphone based apps... its pretty much goodbye Microsoft.

Re:Quick Question

[UncleTogie]

it is true they dumped their printer and computer divisions to china.

Maybe their PCs went to Lenovo, but they got rid of their printer division LONG ago....

You might know it better by its current name, Lexmark...

An American company, btw...

Re:Ha!

[Sean0michael]

Actually, IBM is not primarily a hardware company, but their hardware is definitely big. According to their last annual report, hardware (along with financing) was only 23% of their pre-tax income, down 2% from 2003. Software made up 40% and Services made up the remaining 37%. But their hardware is now focused on bleeding edge tech and R&D, servers, mainframes, and supercomputers.

PDF Warning: ftp://ftp.software.ibm.com/annualreport/2007/2007_ibm_annual.pdf

Re:Quick Question

[GigaplexNZ]

What are you talking about? This is in regards to a software standard. Lenovo is IBM's old "PC Company"...

Mr Anonymous Coward comment was replying to a question about outsourcing hardware divisions, it wasn't intended to be related to a software standard.

Re:Ha!

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually IBM now stands for Indian Business Model. Cut the prices, hire a bunch of 20 something Indian engineers with "Masters" degrees in CS and bring them to the US for 5 to 8 years while paying them Indian wages and Indian income taxes.

Re:Ha!

[C0vardeAn0nim0]

You obviously don't know what you're talking about. OS/2 was an *excellent* operating system. I admit that the 1.x versions were lacking, but that is common for a new OS.

because 1.x was devoloped by, wait for it. wait. microsoft.

Alas, IBM didn't make a ton of deals with hardware manufacturers to practically give them OS/2 in exchange for not allowing any other OS to be sold on the PCs they sold (for obvious reasons--they were competitors to those manufacturers).

I think the real reason is that IBM was a convicted monopoly, and by the time OS/2 2.1 was released this was still fresh on everybody's memory. MS would have cried foul and asked the govt to intervene.

anyway, i miss OS/2 dearly too. if eComstation (consider it as OS/2 warp 5) wasn't so expensive... the company that markets it is about to release version 2. they're current on ECS 2.0RC5, which is available for download. I'll give it a try.

Re:Ha!

[Anonymous Coward]

And each one of them will only do one specific task requiring you to hire one Indian for one skill set while US engineers have to know whole ares of technologies.

Re:IBM? Didn't it used to make a PC?

[C0vardeAn0nim0]

i'd like to buy my own personal mainframe, you insensitive clod...

Re:Quick Question

[Icegryphon]

The more you know

x86, IBM's failed pet project

[TravisO]

You do know they did have this pet project called x86, it wasn't very popular, unless you happen to run Windows, OSX or Linux.

Re:x86, IBM's failed pet project

[Randle_Revar]

IBM gave us the ubiquitous "IBM PC", but x86 is all Intel...

IBM's cpu is the Power series

Awesome Headline

[taucross]

Yeah, you heard me.

Re:Ha!

[mhall119]

IBM is pushing their Symphony office suite, which is ODF compatible.

Re:that's good news

[Anonymous Coward]

Could be, his stance is certainly wide enough.

Re:Ha!

[Anonymous Coward]

Please go back to playing with your Wii.

Because ISO competd against MS, & MS cracked I

[Anonymous Coward]

Because ISO competed against Microsoft, & Microsoft *cracked* its competition.

Having broken the authority of ISO,
they can now claim that THEY are the standard-makers,
( ISO *does* obey MS, right? )
and any gov't that wants to look big/important, like other gov'ts,
will obey Microsoft now,
because there must be ONE standard,
not contradictory oneS,
right? :b

Re:Quick Question

[lysergic.acid]

IBM is a commercial enterprise. they exist to make money for shareholders. if their desktop hardware division is unprofitable or they want to shift their focus to a different market, then that's their prerogative. i don't see what's wrong with their making that decision or why that would make them irrelevant in regard to their ISO membership.

companies change their focus all the time. they enter new markets and pull out of old ones as the company evolves over time. unless you were somehow directly affected by Lenovo's buyout of IBM's PC division i don't see why you would hold a grudge against them for pursuing a pretty standard business strategy.

do you really miss IBM desktops or something? if it makes any difference, IBM owns 6.7% of Lenovo's stock.

personally, i think IBM should be applauded for standing up against this blatant debasement of the very principles ISO is supposed to represent.

Re: record companies

[lahvak]

ISO is significantly more important than record companies.

Well...

[jd]

...IBM released JFS for Linux, works with the Apache group, have released DB/2 for Linux, continued releasing Informix for Linux, have released 500 patents (a mix of hardware and software) for Open Source projects, developed DAISY - an on-the-fly machine code translation engine, worked on Linux M:N threading, and were one of the first vendors to install a Linux distro on their hardware as standard. Many of their Open Source projects have been abandoned and deleted from their site, however, which is a pain.

They are not perfect - they suffer from many of the brain diseases associated with big business - but their contributions to Open Source are dramatic. SGI is one of the few big businesses to seriously compete with IBM on open source software released and contributions to the community. Both IBM and SGI deserve high praise and strong support for the work they have done. Likewise, they both deserve a stiff rap over the knuckles for deleting Open Source software they had released. (In SGI's case, Open B1, which was a nice insight into SGI's security models.)

In light of their history, I would be inclined to argue that IBM and SGI merit the presumption of innocence that is generally withdrawn for large corporations, at least in regards to Open Source and open standards. There needs to be a good reason to believe they are violating acceptable conduct, we can't simply assume it, because they have demonstrated for a great many years that this is one specific subject in which they have worked hard to be trustworthy. It's better to repay that than to give them an incentive to revert to mainstream corporate practices in these areas.

True

[maz2331]

I don't see any immediate demise of the ISO, either.

Re:Ha!

[EdelFactor19]

seeing as they make FAR more money on software than hardware... i think you are full of crap.
go do some research. IBM is not a hardware company.

and your admittidly crappy guess is even crappier, they have several of the top 10.

you might want to wake up and realize its not 1980 anymore. Not too many main frames get sold anymore compared to a. everything else they sell in hardware.

and B. the amount they bring in from software & services.

can you say eclipse?

[EdelFactor19]

Which is why they led the way with and gave away eclipse. which has become the absolute DEFACTO ide for java development, and more and more for everything else.

yeah the are clearly selfish pigs.. damn you for getting behind open source software, and linux

yes they also brought the world lotus notes, but hey no one is perfect.

Re:can you say eclipse?

[ClosedSource]

IBM is good at giving away things they wouldn't be able to sell. Even within the java community there are many who prefer netbeans to eclipse. Saying that eclipse is the "absolute defacto standard for java development".

As far as using Eclipse for C++ development - it compares favorably with C++ IDEs of the late eighties.

IBM Can't Have Its Way so It's Going Home

[Anonymous Coward]

Given how selfish, arrogant, and bullying IBM has been when it has had the opportunity, it is pretty rich their complaining about MS and threatening to take their marbles home and cry to mommy.

Having been around long enough to have been told by IBM in no uncertain terms that I can have that technology if and when IBM decides I can have it...having seen IBM undermine, ignore, malign, slander, and otherwise do what is could to destroy technology and standards it did not like or felt were a competitive threat...I'm crying crocodile tears.

If ever two slimy scumbags deserved each other its MS and IBM.

A pox on both your houses

Re:Ha!

[Bert64]

I never liked OS/2, it may have been better than windows/dos (which wasnt exactly difficult) but it was also a lot heavier, and hardware was more expensive.
A multitasking OS with a graphical shell that required 8MB to run? Amiga users used to make jokes about how bloated an OS would have to get before it would need 8MB...

ISO is fundamentally corrupt

[FreeUser]

This isn't about specific software, hardware or other standards per se.

This is about a corrupt process, which this debacle happened to reveal. The organisation is fundamentally corrupt, the procedures are fundamentally corruptible, and the appeals process has proven that there is no effective corrective mechanism for dealing with corruption.

This makes every standard they stamp, be it the crappy and unimplementable software standard that proved their level of corruption and incapacity for correcting it, or another standard that may be legitimate, or the result of equally corrupt processes to which we are not privy, equally suspect. We cannot know which standards are good, and which are the result of industrial corruption, so all are relatively worthless.

Re:Ha!

[Anonymous Coward]

Please... IBM's 32-bit OS/2 ran circles around Windows NT in its day (as a fine example, search for YouTube video of David Barnes demonstrating OS/2 versus NT back in the early 1990's), and I'm sure the Warp 4.5x kernel will run runs around XP, Vista, and probably also Linux and *BSD kernels on similar hardware even today. The OS/2 kernel used rings 0, 2, and 3 which was very usual for x86 code, but it also was extremely good at juggling multiple tasks and threads under load and at dynamically adjusting process/thread priorities to make the entire system smooth.

I remember some magazine doing a test of OS/2 Warp Server versus NT server sometime in the 1994/1995 timeframe, and a single-CPU Warp box trashed a 4-CPU NT box running the exact same benchmarks.

Notes is a bloated hog, yes, but OS/2? The evidence suggests otherwise.

I have never used an OS for its time that was more of a resource PIG than OS/2 Warp and at the time I was a big supporter of it and even convinced my org at the time to bite the bullet and shell out thousands of dollars a server to upgrade the ram so we could use it instead of NT. possibly worst mistake I ever made, 20-20 hind sight is a wonderful thing though :).

On top of that NT at the time did not multi cpu well, in fact if the test was run on a single CPU for NT it still would have had similar benchmarks. Not good, but the 4 CPU part was just marketting hype at the time to make NT look worse than it was. single CPU wise there was not a lot of difference and Quad CPU back then was a hideously expensive setup.

Whatever became of the ISO?

[Anonymous Coward]

The ISO became a joke. If IBM gives whatever is left of the ISO an ass kicking, and the ISO feels like its ass is being kicked, then I'm happy. The ISO should get its ass kicked. ECMA is pure joke. They are beyond repair, and not worth any effort for rehabilitation. The ISO lost an entire generations respect. They are a puppet joke organization, not worthy of respect. Its sad that they became sellouts. But their greed led to more problems for themselves (they can't get any standards passed anymore because all of the 'paid voters' changed the quorum size and now they can't set standards for toothpaste. They get what they deserve.

no it aint like that

[unity100]

companies HAVE characteristics.

because, after some point, making more money just doesnt matter much to the owners, employees of a successful company. only exceptions are financial institutions, like banks etc, but then again their SOLE activity is money, so success = money.

anything other than that, a company has characteristics. it is defined by the top management in great measure, but also employees of the corporation.

in tech sector this goes further. people reflect their ideas in their work, and when you combine the resultant effect, it becomes how a company behaves.

Eric Cartman

[s_p_oneil]

"Screw you guys, I'm going home."

Microsoft: "Mwa Ha Ha"

[Funk_dat69]

The funny thing is Microsoft probably couldn't be happier if ISO became irrelevant. That would mean no more pesky governments relying on some standard body to decide what to buy.

Hell, they probably tried their hardest to make the whole OOXML thing look like a sham. MS wins either way. They either get their standard in, or ISO falls and the smaller ISO replacements wouldn't have the clout to fight back.

Catia & Ennovia

[Anonymous Coward]

The whole German (and French, but it doens't count ;) automobile industry uses the Dassault systemes Catia CAE-suite by IBM (Porche, Daimler, BMW, VW, etc, and all the Truck manufacurers).
  Today you can't become a supplier of the car industry without providing 3D Catia models of your parts.

Re:Quick Question

[Steeltalon]

Yeah, since the other post was modded down, I couldn't see it at the time.