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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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: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: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?

[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?

[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: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

[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: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

[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....

[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: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.

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

[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.

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

[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

[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."

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: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

[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.

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.

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]

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.

Acronym Overload

[lucabrasi999]

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

Danger! Acronym overload!!!

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

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: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: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.

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.

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.

[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.

If IBM gets its way...

[grizdog]

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

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

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

[C0vardeAn0nim0]

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

Re:Ha!

[mhall119]

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

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.