Slashdot Mirror
IBM's Answer To Windows 7 Is Ubuntu Linux
An anonymous reader writes "It looks like IBM isn't much of a friend of Microsoft's anymore. Today IBM announced an extension of its Microsoft-Free PC effort together with Canonical Ubuntu Linux. This is the same thing that was announced a few weeks back for Africa (a program that began a year ago), and now it's available in the US. The big push is that IBM claims it will cost up to $2,000 for a business to move to Windows 7. They argue that moving to Linux is cheaper."
If you reduce the cost of software to zero and compete only on the hardware, you shut out some people from the market and trample others with your behemoth size.
Yeah, what a shame.
Ubuntu would be great solution for the enterprise. Basic email and office apps, what more do you need? The only problem with Ubuntu is that it needs more testing and validation before each release cycle. I've had basic functionality break between releases and this will not be acceptable for business use.
Ubuntu works for me. Large community, fixed release schedule.
But whatever your choice, small to medium sized companies need to plan well ahead *before* they get locked in,
otherwise one day you'll be in your office and your MS exchange server will say "I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that", then you're stuck with the thing forever.
Windows: hire the most incompetent lowest paid sys admin, buy program. Someone gets around it. Blame program. buy another program
Linux: uh, hire the most incompetent lowest paid sys admin, someone gets around it, fire sys admin.
Next: Goto Windows
That assumes that the value of the software is the same, value being usability, performance, etc. For netbooks, servers, and small dedicated devices I don't think Microsoft can compete at all.
I'm all for Linux, but it can't completely replace Microsoft just yet. I use it for almost everything. However, there is still some development that I find easier to do with a MS operating system. Granted it's stripped down high performance version of XP, but it ain't Ubuntu.
Now if nearly all of the programs being sold for the Microsoft platform worked equally well on a Linux platform then I believe that MS really could be shut out of the market with companies like IBM switching from Windows by default, to anything else.
Unfortunately, I find a lot of the open source offerings for Linux lacking compared to what it is available for Microsoft. I can deal with terrible user interface and poor documentation on some of the stuff, but I doubt I represent anything but a small portion of the market.
This is a real slap to Microsoft, but I hardly think this alone is really shutting them out of the market.
$2,000 US to upgrade per machine? I don't know what in the heck IBM is talking about. I've been running Windows 7 on a two year old $500 laptop without any issues since Beta. They are easily over exagerating that cost, in my opinion, and frankly it turns me off of Ubuntu to see them buddying up with IBM in this way.
*On an interesting side note, I wonder if they calculated all the man hours and reworking of customized code that most shops would have to put in to go from a Microsoft shop to all Linux - I seriously doubt it.
**Do we even want to get into the compatability issues with COTS that still plagues Linux?
OS/2 Warp was made at a time when a significant part of those with the knowhow to make and support a evolving OS worked for Microsoft. Not to mention that it is known that Microsoft leveraged their situation, and growing economic capacity, to convince manufactures that adopting their OS was a good idea.
The Linux platform has a growing support base of not insignificant proportions at this point, and the Ubuntu system has proven itself to be quite robust and one of the easier implementations for new users to get a handle on. The capability to get technical help, support, documentation, and whatever else a company might need, is far different today with Ubuntu Linux than what is was for OS2 when it was introduced.
I can not predict how this will turn out in the end, but looking back and using OS2 as an example for how this will develop seems like conjecture.
The Long Now Foundation
Sorry bud but I don't understand your point. What's wrong with IBM recommending people switch to Linux? It was IBM who recommended Microsoft DOS originally..... now they are simply recommending a different product to run on the PC platform
I'm all for giving people choices.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Ubuntu is an impressive distro for reasons many have argued here before. Karmic is actually a great improvement over Jaunty, and I think it's heading in a positive direction.
I might not have seen it, but I think Ubuntu's server area needs professional, detailed, Ubuntu-specific (if needed) DOCUMENTATION on everything an Ubuntu admin would need to use. http://doc.ubuntu.com/ has the most up-to-date version of the Ubuntu Server Guide, which is a decent start. It pales in comparison, however, to the FreeBSD handbook.
Where's the documentation on
GRUB 2?
Upstart?
UEC?
Building your own repository?
Setting up mass deployment via Kickstart/preseeding?
These are all things integral to the operating system and its deployment. I'm not saying Ubuntu has to have the definitive guide to Nagios or other 3rd party software.
Some things are well covered in the Ubuntu Server Guide, "Pro Ubuntu Server Administration" and Prentice Hall's "The Official Ubuntu Server Book". I would like to see more enterprise tooling and documentation for Ubuntu Server before I expect them to make a significant trench in the enterprise space.
And for those who might say Ubuntu is a desktop-oriented distro,
1) You haven't seen the work or the marketing Ubuntu has done on their server side, and
2) I think Ubuntu could succeed if they can market themselves as THE operating system for an organization.
There are indeed a lack of external programs to lock down the desktop. That's because that kind of thing is built into Linux. ACLs, permissions, SELINUX and on and on.
If you favour Windows, that's fine, to each his own. But please don't spread the MS cool-aid without actually knowing what you are talking about.
And don't give me crap about open office solutions. It took most of these people 10 or 20 years to just get by with Office, you really think they are going to want to essentially re-learn everything? $2000 is only relevant if the people are actually fairly computer savy, which pretty much everyone everywhere is not nor do they care to bother.
I have converted several MS Office users to Open Office, they have never complained. It usually came down to one simple issue, $339.99 or free, pick one, they are the same. This is my experience with office workers, executives, and my 60 year old mom. There is almost no relearning, no one complains especially when the boss says thats how it is. If you disagree perhaps you should give open office a try, its not the same piece of crap you installed 10 years ago....
Ahhhh, the sweet sweet smell of Microsoft FUD.
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
Indeed. If only there were some way of running all that software designed for the Microsoft platform on a Linux platform...
Just because your OS kernel is Open Source(tm) doesn't mean all of your applications need to be.
I think everyone here is missing the point. This is less about how accurate IBM's claims are, and more about the fact a company as large as IBM with a name that established was actually willing to publicly say it. That by itself is a major benifit for Linux.
This is all about momentum, marketing, and market share. I mean seriously, we act as if Microsoft has never made erroneous or speculative claims in the spirit of customer coercion. This is how business works.
I do game development, and I use a lot of open-source libraries (BSD, LGPL, and the like, since I value having my source closed.) Every once in a while people ask me why I rely on libraries that I didn't write myself since, after all, they may be buggy!
Well, a few months ago I ran into a nice hidden bug. I tried to track down the developer and couldn't, and I needed a fix right then, like, within a few hours. So I wrote one, and it worked.
A month later I ran into a new bug, but this time I managed to find the developer. Turned out my fix was buggy (in a way that hadn't been triggered in the first place), but he'd just finished a non-buggy version, so I ripped out my patch and jammed his in and it worked. If I hadn't been able to find him, I would have had to sit down and fix it myself . . . but I could have.
Meanwhile, I have many, many thousands of lines of libraries that just tick along joyfully without a hitch. Overall, it's a huge win, and the fact that they're open-source means that I can fix them if they break.
It really is the way to go.
Breaking Into the Industry - A development log about starting a game studio.
Modern IBM has more of a "Services vendor mind" than a hardware-oriented one. Traditionally, this means they prefer software products which are highly flexible and featureful, but difficult to "self-manage". And perhaps they're right, and Linux is a better fit for the outsourced IT model.
Plus, if you RTFA and decode the marketingisms about "Smart Work", this has less to do with Linux vs. Windows and more to do with IBM selling Lotus Notes to people.
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
I find it interesting that these stories never seem to talk about the cost of retraining in that switch from Windows to Linux in the work place. The authors must be those same people that keep writing about how software companies should replace boxed product with downloading because bandwidth is free.
I'm not saying that many companies wouldn't benefit financially from the switch. Many would. But there are a lot that wouldn't. Anyone who thinks the Microsoft license and the cost of the hardware are the only expenses has no business being a decision-maker in their company's IT.
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
Too bad your users don't have the same freedoms you enjoy. You're right—software freedom is the way to go. Sharing and improving, truly controlling one's own computer and the social solidarity that gives rise to is the single most important reason why nobody should use proprietary software. Including yours.
Digital Citizen
Windows expertise fairly cheaply
Like the sidekick cheap?
or London stock exchange cheap?
The deal you get on the back of a napkin during a nice lunch is soon gone with recovery and the PR mess of epic fail.
The only thing cheap about MS is the first try as a student to get you hooked.
Just like a smart drug dealer at the gates.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
The cost of software is never zero; the cost of admins installing new software and of retraining every user to use a new release of the software far exceeds the licensing costs of the software in most cases. I believe Microsoft's own estimates for the total cost of upgrading from Windows 98 to Windows XP were over $2000 per seat; I wouldn't be surprised if it was higher now. Microsoft continually shoots itself in the foot by completely changing the user interface with each new release of software, resulting in massive productivity losses as everyone has to relearn how to do their job. Eventually, people will realize the huge impact this has on TCO. Not having to throw out your OS and apps, replace them all, and retrain everyone every few years on Microsoft's schedule is one of the real, tangible economic benefits of using open source.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Huh wah?? Obviously you must be from a parallel universe, rather uninformed or a clever troll.
I agree with everything you say, but instead I get modded down into the dirt as your obvious statements falsely manifest as being so informative as to incite a Linux/Window war, which wasn't even the intention of my initial statement. You even incited the mods, good job.
Honestly the amount of fine grained control mixed with sudo (neither run-as or UAC are sudo, they impersonate another user rather then privilege escalation) you get with *nix environment is leaps and bounds ahead of Windows.
The fact is, I only use Linux for servers and have been developing, administering, and project managing them for years. I know locking down a Linux server is easier and better than Window box -- in command line mode. However, I was merely trying to get a meaningful conversion started on locking down machines in a GUI environment, which I imagine is a different beast than GUI, which I am less knowlegable about.
Nice try, but I suggest you undertake a bit of a learning curve and you will be enlightened.
I don't know how you even get good karma or not modded as troll for that comment. I am already a knowledgeable system administrator in Linux as well as a seasoned software developer. However, the Linux Desktop has always been having issues over the years to gain any serious ground through a myriad of development problems. Over the past 2 years, it has improved a lot. However, everyone learns how to lock down Linux using the command line. The GUI environments could be a different beast. Sure, you could create groups and modify the actual binaries for Gnome, or KDE. That is obvious to such "enlightened" people such as us. But there needs to be better ways in order for businesses to jump on board. I know, because I deal with the business types all day, and am partly one myself. Hence my comment for a dialog on this situation. It does seem there is hope, as some people have talked about xguest or gconfig. Other people state that it is easy to control using SELinux -- something I always turn off and avoid like the devil. From what I gather, SELinx may be the solution to securing a Linux Desktop, so I will investigate this avenue. Thanks to everyone that left informative and not trollish comments.
So I guess the conversation was a success, as it spread great information about this topic, even though trolls like you somehow are able to get modded so high while my initial posts get buried.
We don't like too much of a noob influx on Linux all at once anyways. It puts to much stress to the ones in the know.
Anything can be found funny, from a certain point of view.
For a modern desktop, then yes, you're not going to fit all the drivers and subsystems on a floppy.
But for a specific embedded system with very few subsystems, and basically no drivers, then yo u might get on a floppy.
The point remains that Linux scales up extremely well, and scales down extremely well. That is why supercomputers run Linux and small embedded devices run Linux.
Microsoft is terrified of reinventing its core products. Microsoft does push some innovation, and they do some core things right. But their biggest change was grafting their current broken OS on top of NT rather than reinvent properly. And despite the fact that they foresaw the internet being the core experience of your desktop very early on, they didn't forsee internet security issues. Even as they implemented terminal services, they still worked around a broken multi-user model. And even when they saw their kernel was behind the curve on performance, they instead decided to bloat it even more.
The headless Server 2008 was a step in the right direction. There were some claims that after Vista, they'd throw out their current API and start Windows anew, using an emulation layer (akin to Wine) to intercept old API calls. Vista's failure made 7 a necessity.
7 really isn't the savior press make it out to be. Most of the Vista UI regressions remain. With IBM and Google giving big-name credence to Linux on the HOME and BUSINESS DESKTOP, Microsoft should start quaking in their boots. IBM and Google have all the pieces to put together to deliver a really killer experience.
I overheard someone once say they want an OS that they can use in their car, in their phone, and on their desktop. They want it to be consistent, minimal, easy to use, and provide them seamless access to their data wherever they go. I suggested Google online services mixed with Chrome OS, and Android may deliver that to them within a year.
They paused, and then shocked, realized the future may be upon us very quick. And Microsoft is left with a prettied-up-Vista to show off.
Microsoft better wake up real quick with a real, next-generation operating system of the future. It needs to be secure, flexible, low-latency, scalable, modular and customizable. It needs to be their Unix. Only, Steve Jobs beat them to the punch with OS X.
Slowly, but surely, people will realize the Emperor is wearing no clothes. All the time, people see how sexy my KDE 4 desktop is. They ask me how they can get their computer to look like that. Then they hear it is free, legal, has no viruses, and easier to use than Windows.
Then Ballmer starts throwing chairs.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
If you control the machines what is the issue?
Just change the permissions, or remove the stuff or make it not even executable.
The only reason apps exist for windows to do this stuff is because of the incompetence of the average windows sysadmin.
Right, and don't forget to sync up your passwd fiels across 30,000 desktops in your enterprise. I mean, it's just copying a file, right?
Obviously there are better ways to do it than that, even on *nix today (ldap, nis, etc) but hey - maybe those only exist for linux due to the incompetence of the average unix admin? Or those other tools that make things easier, like config files. Who needs config files? You can just configure each daemon when you start it up manually, with command line params! At least, you can if you're competent.
Now get off my lawn.
I can see that one going down:
CFO: "Why can't I open this spreadsheet that accounting sent me?"
IT: "You're using Open Office...that spreadsheet was made in Excel and Open Office doesn't support X feature."
CFO: "Well how the hell can I open it then?"
IT: "We need to wait for enough other people to have the problem and for the developers to add the features."
CFO: "My god...how long will that take?"
IT: "Could be a few weeks, maybe months...or never."
CFO: "Fuck that. I don't have time to waste. You said Excel will open in? Get that installed on here NOW!"
Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
So, you are saying, we shouldn't use your program because if it's buggy and you are unavailable, it's tough luck for us. We are better off playing a GPLed game.
Why is accounting running rogue software without permission from the CFO? How about "CFO: Why the hell is this accounting peon running Excel when the company switched to Open Office months ago? Fire him for piracy."
If you don't implement a standard company-wide, then you will run into trouble. Simple.
Funny because about 30 years ago it was IBMs competition and lock in on its proprietary hardware (basically giving away their OS) that started this whole Microsoft thing. Competition on proprietary hardware and vendor lock-in isn't much different than competition on proprietary software with vendor or platform lock-in.
I'm fine with IBM competing however they want (legally), but I doubt I'll ever see them as much different from Microsoft. To me they're the same animal with a different skin.
Don't think of it as a flame, more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage.
Go and spend 24 hours or so on Ubuntu's forums before you try and tell me it is stable.
That's your argument against Ubuntu? Do you know just how many forums are dedicated to solving various Windows fuckups?
It really is the way to go.
Except, of course, for the software *you* write.
Property is theft.
Yes, i've heard the talk about hardware being given away free with software... It's ridiculous tho...
Software *can* be given away free quite easily, you don't even have to pay all the bandwidth costs because third parties will mirror your files... It's within easy reach of almost anyone to acquire the tools necessary to write and distribute software.
Hardware on the other hand, while competition has driven the price way down, can never be free because each piece of hardware can only be cheapened to a point... It still requires raw materials for each and every unit produced, still needs to be physically moved, and also requires specialised equipment to build.
What is absolutely disgusting, is that software has not seen the same competition that has driven hardware development so much... If software had evolved in the same way as hardware, it would virtually all be free these days and would probably just come bundled with hardware.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
You seem to be overlooking a crucial element in the "OS Wars". As many proponents of Linux or Mac OS seem to do. The issue is consistency and familiarity. These are the primary reasons that MS has stayed on top as long as it has.
First, you may point out that Linux "scales up extremely well, and scales down extremely well." You can also point out that Linux is "free, legal, [and] has no viruses." However, you can't really say it is easier to use than Windows. Not for someone who has never used Linux or any other OS besides Windows.
Whether XP is their first OS or they have progressed through the iterations from Win 3.1, they know Windows. They know where they need to go in the UI to perform the tasks they need to accomplish. They have spent valuable time learning how to perform these tasks in Windows. They are comfortable with it and they become proficient (to some degree) in its use.
Now, one day their Windows is taken away and they are given Ubuntu or Mac OS X. They have no idea where to go to perform the tasks they used to perform with ease. They have to spend their valuable time to relearn a new OS with a new UI. Their actual productivity takes a big hit and they are frustrated that they can't just get their work done. Imagine if that was everyone in your company!! Sure, the company could spend numerous man-hours training the users on the new OS, or they'll have to beef up their IT department to hand hold every user as they painfully become acquainted with the new OS. Or, they can keep using Windows.
Sure, MS makes some minor changes from time to time, but these are done gradually and limited. This gives time for the users to acclimate without making them feel lost. I would love to see MS "wake up real quick with a real, next-generation operating system of the future. It needs to be secure, flexible, low-latency, scalable, modular and customizable." However, look at the backlash they got from the changes they made to the UI in Vista and Office 2007. You can argue about the effectiveness of MS's implementation choices, but the underlying factor is they tried to change Windows for the better (at least that is their intent) and users hated it. I would argue that is one reason Apple and Linux saw an increase in adoption.
I'm still not sure how well Win 7 will go over as it has the same UI as Vista. As I recently moved my Windows box to Win 7 from XP, I can attest to the minor inconvenience of finding where MS has put things in this UI, and I consider myself pretty adept with computers and technology in general. Overall though, I like Win 7 much better so far.
The bottom line: advanced users and computer enthusiasts can adapt to a new and different OS much easier than the average user. Corporations are not going to go through the headache and growing pains of switching all their users to a new OS when many of the users do not know much more about Windows than what is required to accomplish their daily tasks. I believe Windows continues to persist as the dominant OS because MS does not make drastic changes to the OS. If users have to relearn how to use Windows, then they might as well learn another OS. That is when Linux and Apple benefit.