Weekly Edition
Return to the Press page
| |||||||||||
Kill Bill (Forbes)
Yes, it's a
Forbes article by Daniel Lyons, but he seems to have turned over a new
leaf; this one is a lengthy look at IBM's involvement with Linux which
doesn't mention lawsuits at all. "IBM seems to go to any length to
push Linux into customer sites. Last year at the U.S. National Weather
Service, IBM offered a free demo machine and a guarantee to keep its
systems up-to-date, even writing software drivers for components IBM
doesn't build, such as video cards. The result? The NWS spent $3 million to
buy a thousand IBM desktop machines running Linux, replacing 900 HP Unix
workstations."
(Log in to post comments)
Kill Bill (Forbes) Posted May 25, 2004 14:59 UTC (Tue) by allesfresser (subscriber, #216) [Link] He may have turned over a new leaf, but it seems to be wilting even as I read the story: "Back then Linux lacked features that corporate customers need, like strong security and support for computers with multiple microprocessors. So IBM has created 45 Linux tech centers in 12 countries, where programmers crank out Linux code. These are not the hippie hackers who created the early versions of Linux.They are experienced engineers with backgrounds designing IBM's own operating systems, including AIX, its version of the Unix operating system." In other words, SCOspeak: Linux wouldn't have gone anywhere without IBM pushing it. The article also says that an IBM spokesperson "refused to double-check many of the facts in this story"--making it seem like they have something to hide--but of course the author didn't bother to check his facts about SMP, for one...and possibly many others.
Kill Bill (Forbes) Posted May 25, 2004 16:27 UTC (Tue) by dkite (guest, #4577) [Link] Interesting read, but typical journalism. Everything is a horse-racebetween IBM and Microsoft. One thing he does highlight is how Linux and FOSS has matured the IT industry. IT solutions come down to expertise and relationships with the customer, rather than the customer choosing which silo to buy into. This is good for everyone except those accustomed to monopoly profit margins. He is describing a new reality in the industry which is threatening to many. IBM pushes the envelope, sells into a new market, then does what is needed to make it work. After a few iterations most problems have been sorted out. Patches get applied, then I or anyone else can sell the same thing. A new market opens up where IBM is one of many competitors. IBM isn't alone in doing this. The http://kolab.org/ server is another example, which comes from a consulting firm trying to sell groupware solutions. Ultimately the whole market will grow. Microsoft won't be put out of business, but will be forced to compete. Derek
Kill Bill (Forbes) Posted May 25, 2004 16:44 UTC (Tue) by willjamr (guest, #19631) [Link] "For 20 years Microsoft has out-earned, out-smarted and out-maneuvered IBM. At long last IBM may have found a way to get even. Twenty years ago IBM ruled the computer industry. But today Microsoft runs the show. It earns 30% more profit than IBM on one-third of IBM's revenue and has almost double its market value. With Linux, IBM hopes to get even."Does not mention that Microsoft did it by becoming a bigger monopoly
Monopoly Posted May 25, 2004 17:35 UTC (Tue) by ccyoung (subscriber, #16340) [Link] And they did it in large part by dirty tricks - learned directly from IBM. However, in this regard, the student has certainly surpassed the teacher.
Kill Bill (Forbes) Posted May 25, 2004 20:36 UTC (Tue) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link] " For 20 years Microsoft has out-earned, out-smarted and out-maneuvered IBM. At long last IBM may have found a way to get even... "I dont think Microsoft was that "smart", in the sense that their monopoly is based on the "boom" of the "Personal Computer" with pirated copys of Windows. That has permited them to bully a hardware industry in explosive growth and dictate rules to big OEM integrators in extreme competition among them and with the illegal "White Box"... but that is history, of wich i remember quite well, that in 1997 their was reports(sorry but no URLs) telling that "half" of the PC installed base was illegal... and inspite the press been often cynic, for not saying manipulated, it is clear for me that the situation is much more worst today. The gamble and win of Microsoft was that the PC "would stick" and improve to the point of gaining sufficient "critical mass" and computer power to be able to be much cheaper and powerfull and that way replace the tradicional unix Server and workstations and be the center of a new type of entreprise. That was the gamble!!... that Microsoft would make a fortune with a "cheap" and higly instable OS suited to play games and small tasks, taked from the "NO PROFIT" illegal rided White Box world... and take the entreprises by storm. Its almost understable that "IBM would had laught of it" at first. But the needs of the world were well underestimated, and the cheer numbers of Windows installations has destroyed every theory... ... for Microsoft was do or die,... everything or nothing... But now its pay back time, and with the entreprises and goverments shifting to a much more powerfull, secure and cheaper technology, Microsoft is been deprived of its sources of income inspite of it could be remain with the majority of the world installed base for a long time... Because no big company can survive in the "no-no profit" hypocrite world of the domestic and SOHO market,... thanks to them!. So their fear and worries has a new paranoic enemy(IBM), like their tactics of DRM lock-in the PC platform, as in the NGSBC/palladium, and their "Web Services" centraly controlled push, all to enable them to control the users PC, and forced them to buy any of the Microsoft products in the future... I really hope they fail. So no one is killing Bill... its only Karma.
Kill Bill (Forbes) Posted May 25, 2004 21:31 UTC (Tue) by dkite (guest, #4577) [Link] Microsoft isn't dying. At best it's growth has been slowed a little.Microsoft has been very smart and very lucky. They had a steady cash flow from OS preinstalls, which they leveraged into a steady cash flow from Office sales (where they essentially knackered the competition by defining an office suite). They created and managed a market where no-one could get investment dollars to compete with them. Everything was a placeholder until Microsoft got their stuff good enough to clear the deck. It is easy to twist arms when everyone is in your grip. A very nasty situation, a natural monopoly. A subtext of the article is how dangerous it is for anyone to snub Microsoft. But imagine a marketplace where IBM, HP, Dell or anyone of that size could tell Microsoft to stuff it and not have any sales or profit repercussions. That is not the case right now. That is what IBM is trying, and if they are successful, they will have blazed a trail more daring and with more far-reaching consequences than simply adopting Linux. I'm not sure they will succeed. They will make money with Linux, but to redefine the marketplace may be larger than them. These games are interesting to watch, but have very little to do with the thousands of developers working away on their projects. Unfortunately when these giants toss daisy-cutters, there is collateral damage. Derek
Kill Bill (Forbes) Posted May 25, 2004 23:15 UTC (Tue) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link] " Microsoft isn't dying"Even OS pre-install income is sliding down hill fast... and he have to got faith in the Linux Desktop. IMO that is why they are pointing IBM as enemy nš1... they were the ones behind Munich switch to Linux Desktop, and irrelevant as it may be in term of numbers, they are pushing it everywhere else too(contrary to HP)... My point is that the big problem with Microsoft is not that they could reduce the profit margins of Windows/Longhorn and Office by a large extend and still survive... the problem is that they are a too big financial pyramid that could colapse even being the nš1 in world instalation numbers... and that even with powerfull forces in and outside of goverments arround the world helping them. How long would that take and exactly what will happen, i cannot tell,... but this is like a "karmic trend". And a trend that could only take the hardware industry to flud the Linux world with "comoditazed du-jour" hardware support to precepitate a new Linux White Box explosion and (IMO)with that the almost certain colapse of Microsoft. Then IBM would not count much!... If only the more zealot about open source "drivers" could enter an acceptable compromise with that hardware industry!!. "Kill Bill" is a well chosen title, that has the cinical and subtle suggestion of a possible Microsoft downfall,... and that at the pick of their growth... typical of a press that is averse to any type of failure or less success like Forbes.
Kill Bill (Forbes) Posted May 26, 2004 4:49 UTC (Wed) by XERC (guest, #14626) [Link] Sorry, Linux is a community supported project andthat means, that we can not continue, unless we are able to pay for software licenses or someone like IBM will lend his patent pool to us for antisueing. I guess, that after the EU has legislated the software patents,
Kill Bill (Forbes) Posted May 26, 2004 22:26 UTC (Wed) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link] "...that we can not continue, unless we are able to pay for software licenses..."YES WE CAN... I dont know about any patent at all,... but if any thing i code happen to infringe someone patent, i can go on with my life if i dont distribute it commercialy... well someone like Microsoft can came after Sourceforge to stop the distribution of the code... but can you imagine they really stoping all distribution arround the world??... its a kind of underworld!,... but not even Microsoft would mind because their home desktop is a huge underground anyway. So the problem is "commercial" and in that department i doubt they can harmwrestle with IBM... Software patents can be a great slow down for Open-source, but i doubt it will kill it... In the meantime it seems to me that from the point of view of a SOHO "afficionado" that hardware support will be much more importante than software patents.
Kill Bill (Forbes) Posted May 27, 2004 5:47 UTC (Thu) by XERC (guest, #14626) [Link] Well, let's hope, that You are right here. Naturally Ihave my own friends, with whom I can change code with, even by giving CDs and in the end, encrypted CDs can be mailed by snailmail, but I'm afraid that we are not able to maintain(look for holes and patch) a full operating system. May be we can maintain a small part of it, but not more. By the way, I have furnished myself with an image of the
Kill Bill (Forbes) Posted May 26, 2004 4:48 UTC (Wed) by Eudyptes (guest, #15589) [Link] "In the previous big battle in the computer industry, for control of the[PC revolution] and the Internet craze it spawned, IBM lost badly to Microsoft. It had anointed Microsoft as a future titan by picking it to provide the operating system software for the first IBM Personal Computer, which debuted in 1981. Back in 1986, when Microsoft went public, it was worth less than $1 billion, compared with $93 billion for IBM." And this is where it started. IBM was the bad boy of American captialism. It was the monopoly cast down buy the very environment in which it flourished and became the legendary behemoth. But M$ stepped into those shoes quite eagerly. As one poster pointed out, the student became the master. But on a /. article I wrote I mentioned the parody's between Rome and M$. M$ as a business has kicked some serious ass. Yes they were (and are) dirty. The have a simple coporate mantra - win at all costs... And don't get caught. They forced the OEM's to install their product on the manufacturers products by default. This is a bit deceiving however. Why is it deceiving? Yes it's true that the "software" is what made M$ and the manner in which it moved into the market assured their position. Servers don't make the kind of money that the individual pc does. Yes servers make a damn lot of money. But I contend that the "x86" architecture is what made the Billions for M$. Focus on this and perhaps one might be able to find M$' Achilles heal. Linux can scale up and down the architecture. It started having success running as webservers. But as we all know it has indeed "matured". It is a serious contender on medium and big iron. So, some purists believe Linux is meant for and should stay on the backend. But Linux will always have an uphill battle on one front or another in this regard. As long as M$ dominates the PC, the personal computer, the desktop, the home network, yada yada,... M$ will always have the muscle to push its will around. But consider this. What happens when an appreciable set of business and/or corporations start to put in large order with OEM's for PC's preloaded with a Linux desktop. What happens when Dell, IBM, HP, or whoever, start placing orders for 15,000 or 30,000 or so of the afformentioned PC's? Linus has been quoted as say the "real fun" is on the desktop (paraphrased). But why? Just because he finds it interesting? Perhaps! On the otherhand, what would the world (IT wise) be like if there where large and viable computing environments with Linux-F/OSS products on the front end and the backend. Most companies don't necessarily want employees playing HL2 or Doom3 on the office computers. They don't want the corporate servers to be repositories for employee mp3 downloads. But the do want using email, browsing, using databases, pims, VoIP, office suites, etc. And if this can be done at the lowest possible cost all the better. Being able to config MPlayer or Xine to play DVDs, or getting 3D drivers working for playing games is all fine. Hell it's my favorite thing to do. But the real focus is on the "x86". Linux will win on the server side. But, as I stated earlier, meat and potatoes on every plate - Or as Mr Gates saw it a PC in every home. Linux on the Desktop is the next battle front. It was already reported (IDG IIRC) that Linux surpassed Mac on the desktop. M$' new OS server strategy with the "server side push" is ironic in my opinion. Recall IBM in its hayday. Big and Powerful iron. The PC was by todays standard a mere shell. Little more than a dumb terminal for the "Frame". Now M$ is making a similar push. And the irony IMHO is IBM is following in M$ footsteps. They are now pushing a power PC OS for the desktop. As IBM once based the business on the server and PC as interface to the core. M$ might be trying to negate the very market it in many ways created. Computers are now a bonifide commodity. It's about a product label more over. The "x86" was what made the M$ Empire and will enevitably be its downfall. They will not win on the server and big iron front. And if Linux gets any appreciable market play on the desktop then Linux will be able to offer a "complete" package - Front to back. This is what scares the hell out of the Redmondians. Tie this with the fact that at its core Linux has no real head to cut off and your in a corner. Kill of RH or Lindows and it will keep on rolling. M$, as with Rome, will suffer the fate of arrogance and complacency. They are being destroyed by their inability to "recognize" the decay within their own culture. IBM realizes that the OS is a tool and the x86 (be it ia32 or ia64) is a focal point and if you have the right product for the tool you've got a strong position in the market. This is all about money. If I'm running a business and can get a product that is cost effective, interoperable, servicable, and provides me the "tool" in need then what's the problem. Why the hell would I want to pay for something that is expensive, inefficient, and vulnerable to exploitation? Yes Windows does function and do the job it was intended to. But if I can get the same thing for cheaper and it's more reliable then why wouldn't I. This is the crux of the matter. And if RH, SuSE/Novell, IBM, The Asian triad (as I call the Japanese, Korean, Sino OSS consortium) can give it to me... Well? It's pretty much a no brainer. M$ knows people have a Love/Hate relationship with them. And give them something else to LOVE and what's left? This is what M$ fears the most - A true competitor. They have one now!
Kill Bill (Forbes) Posted May 26, 2004 23:00 UTC (Wed) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link] "...M$' new OS server strategy with the "server side push" is ironic in myopinion" Not ironic... a necessity. If their corporate sales in entreprises get to get really depressed, because of Linux Desktop and server, then the only resort they have may be the huge installed base in the domestic and SOHO world. And in that department a solid server side is important for the "Web Services" oriented costumer lock-in they trying to implement... not only to squeeze some money from the common home user but to lock-in some really faithfull entreprises in the process.
|
|||||||||||