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.
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?
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
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
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.
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.
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.