It frightens me that IBM is pushing for more Linux.  They have gone to
the point of releasing some of their software patents to help spark the
growth of Linux.  I for one shudder at the fact that some day companies
like IBM may make a power play for the control of Linux software
development.  It will not be in ownership rights, because of the GPL.
However, if the corporations of the world start "needing" open source,
they will try to control and steer its development by offering large
"donations" to get what they are depending on.  If open source
developers accept these "gifts," they will become dependent on the
corporations.

If this hypothetical thought turns out to be true, would this spoil the
free software notion of open source and make Linux as proprietary as
any other commercial OS?  In my hypothetical future of Linux and IBM,
would we have IBM sponsered distributions of Linux, for instance?
Would IBM be next to try to rule the world with their "IBM Linux" just
as MS is trying to rule the desktop with Windows?  Think about it.  IBM
has a lot of money to throw around.  They could make "IBM Linux" way
more popular than Red Hat with that kind of money.  Maybe even make it
as popular as Windows??  They'll hold the dough while Linux developers
try to get in on a piece of the action.



** DISCALIMER **

This post is neither an attack on Linux, an attack on Windows, a
Windows endorsement, nor a Linux endorsement.  This post was made to
merely get you thinking and to spark conversation.

n00b wrote:

> It frightens me that IBM is pushing for more Linux.

Are you scared of cute bunny rabbits as well?

> They have gone to
> the point of releasing some of their software patents to help spark the
> growth of Linux.  I for one shudder at the fact that some day companies
> like IBM may make a power play for the control of Linux software
> development.  It will not be in ownership rights, because of the GPL.
> However, if the corporations of the world start "needing" open source,
> they will try to control and steer its development by offering large
> "donations" to get what they are depending on.  If open source
> developers accept these "gifts," they will become dependent on the
> corporations.

People do a lot of work now accepting gifts. It hasn't
resulted in a bad world. The problems you are referring are
to money men controlling projects through control of IP.
That doesn't happen with GNU/Linux. Because even if you
are in the pockets of some big corporations so what?
If you develop OSS code, then it belongs to the whole
community of developers. Where is the bad in that??

> If this hypothetical thought turns out to be true, would this spoil the
> free software notion of open source and make Linux as proprietary as
> any other commercial OS?  In my hypothetical future of Linux and IBM,
> would we have IBM sponsered distributions of Linux, for instance?
> Would IBM be next to try to rule the world with their "IBM Linux" just
> as MS is trying to rule the desktop with Windows?  Think about it.  IBM
> has a lot of money to throw around.  They could make "IBM Linux" way
> more popular than Red Hat with that kind of money.

Nothing wrong with that. The IBM Linux belongs to the whole
developer community. You should be able to take all the OSS code
from IBM and use it to develop your own distro if you are unhappy.
Where is the bad in all that?

> Maybe even make it
> as popular as Windows??  They'll hold the dough while Linux developers
> try to get in on a piece of the action.

Meaningless!
Hold the dough for what? Wages?
The product of those wages is still OSS software
which everyone can use.

If I get you right, you are writing as
if OSS software == commercial software which it isn't.
Any and all OSS code belongs to the whole developer
community.

I guess I see it as if OSS needs to be free to the community.  It won't
be free if large corporations get on the OSS Choo-Choo.  The whole fact
of the matter is everyone needs to survive.  Everyone needs money.
That's all it takes before Linux isn't free anymore.  Any system you
choose to build a foundation on holds you hostage.  Its cheaper to pay
the neighborhood bully than migrate.  If a company starts pulling the
strings, the hostages will be ourselves and nothing will get us out
besides a miracle.  Nothing is protecting anyone from what I am
suggesting could happen.

OSS isn't commercial software "yet" but it could turn out that way with
enough money and enough developers that are willing to fatten their
pocketbooks.  The money won't exchange hands for the sale of the
software directly.  The exchange will take place under the guise of
"services rendered" or "support fees."  Nothing is preventing OSS from
being payed for this way.  Once a company can pull the strings of
enough developers, the software will begin to imitate the way that
company likes to do business.  It will be shaped into what they want it
to be and not the freedom of choice it is today.

On 2005-02-01, n00b <advinn@email.com> sputtered:
> It frightens me that IBM is pushing for more Linux.  They have gone to
> the point of releasing some of their software patents to help spark the
> growth of Linux.  I for one shudder at the fact that some day companies
> like IBM may make a power play for the control of Linux software
> development.  It will not be in ownership rights, because of the GPL.
> However, if the corporations of the world start "needing" open source,
> they will try to control and steer its development by offering large
> "donations" to get what they are depending on.  If open source
> developers accept these "gifts," they will become dependent on the
> corporations.

The rest will just fork everything and keep the good stuff going. Like
they do now.

> If this hypothetical thought turns out to be true, would this spoil the
> free software notion of open source and make Linux as proprietary as
> any other commercial OS?  In my hypothetical future of Linux and IBM,
> would we have IBM sponsered distributions of Linux, for instance?
> Would IBM be next to try to rule the world with their "IBM Linux" just
> as MS is trying to rule the desktop with Windows?  Think about it.  IBM
> has a lot of money to throw around.  They could make "IBM Linux" way
> more popular than Red Hat with that kind of money.  Maybe even make it
> as popular as Windows??  They'll hold the dough while Linux developers
> try to get in on a piece of the action.

The rest will just fork everything and keep the good stuff going. Like
they do now.

> ** DISCALIMER **
>
> This post is neither an attack on Linux, an attack on Windows, a
> Windows endorsement, nor a Linux endorsement.  This post was made to
> merely get you thinking and to spark conversation.

The rest will just fork everything and keep the good stuff going. Like
they do now.


-- 
Microsoft: The company that made the Internet dangerous.

n00b wrote:

> I guess I see it as if OSS needs to be free to the community.  It won't
> be free if large corporations get on the OSS Choo-Choo.

Only if they are hiding their real intentions to against
OSS movement later - but inevitably it falls apart
these little schemes of theirs because the source code
is out in the open for anyone to carry on where they left off.

> The whole fact
> of the matter is everyone needs to survive.  Everyone needs money.

They can get plenty of money servicing contracts for governments
or using OSS to build e-commerce systems and so on.

> That's all it takes before Linux isn't free anymore.

Where did that come from?

> Any system you
> choose to build a foundation on holds you hostage.  Its cheaper to pay
> the neighborhood bully than migrate.  If a company starts pulling the
> strings, the hostages will be ourselves and nothing will get us out
> besides a miracle.  Nothing is protecting anyone from what I am
> suggesting could happen.

Eh? What does that mean?

> OSS isn't commercial software "yet" 

When did that happen. Most OSS is commercial (the big ones). It has to be
funded by real contracts from big companies and government
contracts.

> but it could turn out that way with
> enough money and enough developers that are willing to fatten their
> pocketbooks.  The money won't exchange hands for the sale of the
> software directly.  The exchange will take place under the guise of
> "services rendered" or "support fees."  Nothing is preventing OSS from
> being payed for this way.  Once a company can pull the strings of
> enough developers, the software will begin to imitate the way that
> company likes to do business.  It will be shaped into what they want it
> to be and not the freedom of choice it is today.

Eh? Whats all that mean?

What's it all mean?

A couple of months ago, I was attending a training class when the
subject of OSS came up.  I told the trainer what it was and she said
this, "You mean there's people out there willing to write software for
us (meaning our company) for free?"  That's when  this apocalyptic idea
took root and it worried me.  I could see in her eyes what she thought
I was saying.  She thought everyone involved with OSS was some kind of
fool to work for free and I was an idiot for not using it where we work
(taking advantage of these so called fools.)  I saw in this woman the
desire to steal time and energy for what?  personal gain?  the bottom
line?  making herself look good in front of the investors?

I see this, not as fact but mere speculation, that IBM may have some of
this woman in them.  There are people watching OSS, waiting for a
chance to fly the ship once it has a foothold in corporations.  They
will try to steal everything they can get because its all free, free,
free.  Then they drive the development of it and everyone gets on the
bandwagon.  The systems that are built by everyone who buys this
corporate Linux holds them hostage from ever migrating away.  The time
and energy is not there to convert and investors can't see that far
ahead.  The managers who install this system become no better than a
guy getting squeezed by the mafia.  They pay the "fee" to get what they
need and survive.  Think it can't happen?  It is a possibility, but
then again I'm probably just spinning a yarn.  I'm talking science
fiction, not fact.  I present one mere speculatory timeline in an
infinite number of possibilities.

On 2005-02-01, n00b <advinn@email.com> sputtered:
> What's it all mean?
>
> A couple of months ago, I was attending a training class when the
> subject of OSS came up.  I told the trainer what it was and she said
> this, "You mean there's people out there willing to write software for
> us (meaning our company) for free?"  That's when  this apocalyptic idea
> took root and it worried me.  I could see in her eyes what she thought
> I was saying.  She thought everyone involved with OSS was some kind of
> fool to work for free and I was an idiot for not using it where we work
> (taking advantage of these so called fools.)  I saw in this woman the
> desire to steal time and energy for what?  personal gain?  the bottom
> line?  making herself look good in front of the investors?
>
> I see this, not as fact but mere speculation, that IBM may have some of
> this woman in them.  There are people watching OSS, waiting for a
> chance to fly the ship once it has a foothold in corporations.  They
> will try to steal everything they can get because its all free, free,
> free.  Then they drive the development of it and everyone gets on the
> bandwagon.  The systems that are built by everyone who buys this
> corporate Linux holds them hostage from ever migrating away.  The time
> and energy is not there to convert and investors can't see that far
> ahead.  The managers who install this system become no better than a
> guy getting squeezed by the mafia.  They pay the "fee" to get what they
> need and survive.  Think it can't happen?  It is a possibility, but
> then again I'm probably just spinning a yarn.  I'm talking science
> fiction, not fact.  I present one mere speculatory timeline in an
> infinite number of possibilities.

The rest will just fork everything and keep the good stuff going. Like
they do now.

In order for IBM or anyone else to "steal" something, they first have
to have access to it. That comes through the open licensing. It also
means everyone else has access to it thanks to the open licensing.

If IBM improves things and makes them proprietary, others having access
will fork what's there and continue on, or they'll simply keep on
keeping on with the original, which will /still/ be open licensed under
the GPL. IBM, Sun, MICROS~1, nobody can do anything about that.

Their trick will require they take what's there and improve it in ways
that people will /want/ their proprietary version. They'll end up being
in competition with free and open versions. If they can justify the
expense to develop a product that may/may not furnish a break even
point, much less a profit, then they're welcome to do it. But the GPLed
portion will continue on, still under the GPL. And their portion that
contains GPLed code will have to be released as GPLed code.

There are other licenses that allow whomever to not release code and
still be in compliance. There are several such items, including
libraries that are often used in proprietary products. These are
specfically licensed in ways to allow a company to /not/ release code
if they desire things that way.

Your "trainer" may have struck you as being greedy and selfish, but
your "trainer" has no more, and no less, right to use the products that
are freely available, or to purchase them as part of a package from a
distributor or company that pulls it all together. Ditto IBM, Sun,
MICROS~1*, Oracle, Opera, NSA or anyone else.

For the 5th time now:

The rest will just fork everything and keep the good stuff going. Like
they do now.

(Maybe next time you could quote some of something so we know who
you're supposed to be responding to.)

* They'll find themselves in a bit of a predicament if they do, but
there's nothing stopping them except the lies they'd have to admit to
telling. That shouldn't be a big deal, though. The only ones still
pretending they aren't lying is them.

-- 
Microsoft: The company that made the Internet dangerous.

> The rest will just fork everything and keep the good stuff going.
Like
> they do now.
>
> In order for IBM or anyone else to "steal" something, they first have
> to have access to it. That comes through the open licensing. It also
> means everyone else has access to it thanks to the open licensing.
>
> If IBM improves things and makes them proprietary, others having
access
> will fork what's there and continue on, or they'll simply keep on
> keeping on with the original, which will /still/ be open licensed
under
> the GPL. IBM, Sun, MICROS~1, nobody can do anything about that.
>
> Their trick will require they take what's there and improve it in
ways
> that people will /want/ their proprietary version. They'll end up
being
> in competition with free and open versions. If they can justify the
> expense to develop a product that may/may not furnish a break even
> point, much less a profit, then they're welcome to do it. But the
GPLed
> portion will continue on, still under the GPL. And their portion that
> contains GPLed code will have to be released as GPLed code.
>
> There are other licenses that allow whomever to not release code and
> still be in compliance. There are several such items, including
> libraries that are often used in proprietary products. These are
> specfically licensed in ways to allow a company to /not/ release code
> if they desire things that way.
>
> Your "trainer" may have struck you as being greedy and selfish, but
> your "trainer" has no more, and no less, right to use the products
that
> are freely available, or to purchase them as part of a package from a
> distributor or company that pulls it all together. Ditto IBM, Sun,
> MICROS~1*, Oracle, Opera, NSA or anyone else.
>
> For the 5th time now:
>
> The rest will just fork everything and keep the good stuff going.
Like
> they do now.

I understand what you mean.  Forking will solve the problem for people
involved in the creation of new systems, but those people who have tied
themselves into any proprietary features of a corporate Linux would
have their hands tied to migrating to new forked versions.  To
implement a full system, you have to tie yourself in to something.
Just because it will be OSS, doesn't mean the consumers will have the
time and resources available to modify that much code.  Migration is
expensive as hell.  I'm sure a lot of IT departments that run on
Windows are watching the OSS software movement, wishing they could get
in on it, but the high cost of migration is preventing it.  Take an IT
dept in medium sized company that sells something other than software.
There may be a few developers on staff paid to take the business into
the future.  It wouldn't be a career move to tell the administrative
staff that all IT progress will halt so a migration can be done.
What's the cost benefit?  What's the ROI?  Migration time is the first
cost involved with going to a new system.  Some will pay, most won't.
That's where a corporate sponsered Linux would fall in my apocalyptic
vision.  It would hold people hostage, the corporations will have
stolen a cheap system and devised a way to hold its consumers in.  GPL
or not, not everybody can afford to modify the proprietary features
that may be used.  The orginal developers of the Linux the corporations
start with will be the fools.  Their hard work stolen from them and
nothing in return but to "fork."  Someone else profits from the work
done and the fools will do it again.  But hell, its all OSS so we're
safe?  I don't know, I leave the answer to the reader of this post.
Could it happen?


> (Maybe next time you could quote some of something so we know who
> you're supposed to be responding to.)


Sorry using Google groups to post.  I usually use Pan, I'm new to
Google.

n00b wrote:
> I guess I see it as if OSS needs to be free to the community.  It won't
> be free if large corporations get on the OSS Choo-Choo.
> 

So we ought to get the government's guns, then, and break down the 
corporate doors and "steal" their software, for the people?

or what?

Do you understand that "freedom" for YOU and ME also means freedom for 
someone ELSE, even if they're "Evil corporate stooges"?

And that if you sell your ideas to the ECS, you can just go and make more?

What is the problem with you people and success?

-- 
http://www.polhemus.cc/blog

On 2005-02-01, n00b <advinn@email.com> sputtered:
>> The rest will just fork everything and keep the good stuff going.
> Like
>> they do now.
>>
>> In order for IBM or anyone else to "steal" something, they first have
>> to have access to it. That comes through the open licensing. It also
>> means everyone else has access to it thanks to the open licensing.
>>
>> If IBM improves things and makes them proprietary, others having
> access
>> will fork what's there and continue on, or they'll simply keep on
>> keeping on with the original, which will /still/ be open licensed
> under
>> the GPL. IBM, Sun, MICROS~1, nobody can do anything about that.
>>
>> Their trick will require they take what's there and improve it in
> ways
>> that people will /want/ their proprietary version. They'll end up
> being
>> in competition with free and open versions. If they can justify the
>> expense to develop a product that may/may not furnish a break even
>> point, much less a profit, then they're welcome to do it. But the
> GPLed
>> portion will continue on, still under the GPL. And their portion that
>> contains GPLed code will have to be released as GPLed code.
>>
>> There are other licenses that allow whomever to not release code and
>> still be in compliance. There are several such items, including
>> libraries that are often used in proprietary products. These are
>> specfically licensed in ways to allow a company to /not/ release code
>> if they desire things that way.
>>
>> Your "trainer" may have struck you as being greedy and selfish, but
>> your "trainer" has no more, and no less, right to use the products
> that
>> are freely available, or to purchase them as part of a package from a
>> distributor or company that pulls it all together. Ditto IBM, Sun,
>> MICROS~1*, Oracle, Opera, NSA or anyone else.
>>
>> For the 5th time now:
>>
>> The rest will just fork everything and keep the good stuff going.
> Like
>> they do now.
>
> I understand what you mean.  Forking will solve the problem for people
> involved in the creation of new systems, but those people who have tied
> themselves into any proprietary features of a corporate Linux would
> have their hands tied to migrating to new forked versions.

Assuming one of their goals was to break free of proprietary software,
they can't be too bright to allow themselves to get locked back into
proprietary software.

If we further assume it happens without their knowledge, then they some
day wake up and realize it's happened, all they have to do is seek to
make the break again. The free stuff will still be there.

> To implement a full system, you have to tie yourself in to something.
> Just because it will be OSS, doesn't mean the consumers will have the
> time and resources available to modify that much code.  Migration is
> expensive as hell.  I'm sure a lot of IT departments that run on
> Windows are watching the OSS software movement, wishing they could
> get in on it, but the high cost of migration is preventing it.  Take
> an IT dept in medium sized company that sells something other than
> software. There may be a few developers on staff paid to take the
> business into the future.  It wouldn't be a career move to tell the
> administrative staff that all IT progress will halt so a migration
> can be done. What's the cost benefit?  What's the ROI?  Migration
> time is the first cost involved with going to a new system.  Some
> will pay, most won't. That's where a corporate sponsered Linux would
> fall in my apocalyptic vision.  It would hold people hostage, the
> corporations will have stolen a cheap system and devised a way to
> hold its consumers in.

See above. They make their own beds if they choose the direction of
more propriety.

That said, they could just as easily hire someone outside to write what
they need, provide support, make whatever fixes are needed, etc. As
part of that agreement, they can demand the source code be furnished.

For that matter, they could just as easily demand access to the source
for any proprietary deals as a condition of making the deal. No source,
no takee. It's not like there's only one place to turn, the way it is
if somebody chooses MICROS~1 Crapware.

If a corp has something they want, and they can't make a deal because a
precondition won't be met, they take something else and pay someone to
create what they need, or pay the proprietary company for the must-have
software. It's still a lot cheaper, and far less restrictive, than it
would be under your terms.

> GPL or not, not everybody can afford to modify the proprietary
> features that may be used.  The orginal developers of the Linux the
> corporations start with will be the fools.  Their hard work stolen
> from them and nothing in return but to "fork." Someone else profits
> from the work done and the fools will do it again.  But hell, its all
> OSS so we're safe?  I don't know, I leave the answer to the reader of
> this post. Could it happen?

This must be a new tack by $MONOPOLY. It isn't any more true than their
"independent" benchmarks or their "independent" case studies.

If a company is intent on breaking free of the reigns of the illegally-
maintained monopoly, they should spend a few extra days doing some
research first. If they don't at least try to do that, I don't expect
they had much of a future in business anyway.

If a business decides to go with linux and they haven't compared costs
and benefits, they're dead no matter what. If they have, but they
didn't take into account the possibility of what you're describing,
they're /still/ dead, and ended up wasting their time on the first part
of their research.

No business is going to survive for long if they just jump into things
without calculating what that may potentially mean to them.

>> (Maybe next time you could quote some of something so we know who
>> you're supposed to be responding to.)
>
>
> Sorry using Google groups to post.  I usually use Pan, I'm new to
> Google.

-- 
Microsoft: The company that made the Internet dangerous.

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, n00b
<advinn@email.com>
 wrote
on 31 Jan 2005 16:44:43 -0800
<1107218683.786326.132310@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>:
> It frightens me that IBM is pushing for more Linux.  They have gone to
> the point of releasing some of their software patents to help spark the
> growth of Linux.  I for one shudder at the fact that some day companies
> like IBM may make a power play for the control of Linux software
> development.  It will not be in ownership rights, because of the GPL.
> However, if the corporations of the world start "needing" open source,
> they will try to control and steer its development by offering large
> "donations" to get what they are depending on.  If open source
> developers accept these "gifts," they will become dependent on the
> corporations.

I'm a little worried myself, but for a slightly different reason.
IBM's website, at least for consumer level stuff, is pushing XP.
It's an odd position, as far as I can tell.

It may depend on the gifts.  Are you referring to patents, or
engineering development time?

>
> If this hypothetical thought turns out to be true, would this spoil the
> free software notion of open source and make Linux as proprietary as
> any other commercial OS?  In my hypothetical future of Linux and IBM,
> would we have IBM sponsered distributions of Linux, for instance?
> Would IBM be next to try to rule the world with their "IBM Linux" just
> as MS is trying to rule the desktop with Windows?  Think about it.  IBM
> has a lot of money to throw around.  They could make "IBM Linux" way
> more popular than Red Hat with that kind of money.  Maybe even make it
> as popular as Windows??  They'll hold the dough while Linux developers
> try to get in on a piece of the action.

A possibility.  However, IBM's already been stung by the monopoly bug,
too (Amdahl used to supply mainframes), and is probably quietly
watching Microsoft's attempts, as well as defending itself against
SCO's accusations (and they've not had to put up that much of a defense,
so far).

I'd think that IBM's leadership is smarter than to try to monopolize
the desktop explicitly, although they may get handed it by default
if no one else wants it.  But that's a long way off.

In any event, IBM is in bed with Microsoft, and it is not clear
that they want to get out of bed just yet; stripping Windows
from all of their consumer-level equipment would not be all that
profitable for them, methinks.

Yet. :-)

>
>
>
> ** DISCALIMER **
>
> This post is neither an attack on Linux, an attack on Windows, a
> Windows endorsement, nor a Linux endorsement.  This post was made to
> merely get you thinking and to spark conversation.
>

-- 
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.

The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
> I'm a little worried myself, but for a slightly different reason.
> IBM's website, at least for consumer level stuff, is pushing XP.
> It's an odd position, as far as I can tell.
>
> It may depend on the gifts.  Are you referring to patents, or
> engineering development time?
>

I was referring to the patents, tell me more about the engineering
development time you speak of...

People have been calling me over the last few months asking me about my
ERP needs in our company and telling me how IBM could help.  After
looking at their website I found that the ERP solution they have is
just as proprietary as any other.  From the site:

# IBM WebSphere=AE software -- a versatile software platform for
e-business
# IBM MQSeries=AE messaging software that makes it easy for ERP and
other business applications to exchange information reliably, on IBM
and non-IBM platforms
# IBM DB2=AE -- database management

They may need help porting their software over to Linux or they may
want to provide a better support team.  The site doesn't say too much
without having to contact a rep for more answers.  I think from what I
have seen, IBM is offering to help the ROI equation even if that means
sending consultants to your business (who may recommend Linux? I don't
know... I have to keep digging.)  Like consultants are free, lol.  Our
medium sized company can't afford that kind of consultation and it
can't afford a migration to any other system from what we have.  It was
like pulling teeth getting the 15K of capital dollars to pay for an
upgrade of the very old ERP system we have been using for at least a
decade.  We are locked in tight.  There are 4 people in my I.T. team, 2
developers, 1 network admin, and 1 tech.  I wear so many hats as well
as the other guys.  We are knowledgable and capable, but there is no
way in heck we could get ourselves out of the bed that we lie in.  We
have a project list so long that its going to take years to put a dent
on it.  The business wants I.T., but they don't want to pay that much
for it.  Me and the other guy create systems at an astounding rate and
they still complain.  I digress...


IBM's business solutions use IBM proprietary software technology.
> A possibility.  However, IBM's already been stung by the monopoly
bug,
> too (Amdahl used to supply mainframes), and is probably quietly
> watching Microsoft's attempts, as well as defending itself against
> SCO's accusations (and they've not had to put up that much of a
defense,
> so far).
>
> I'd think that IBM's leadership is smarter than to try to monopolize
> the desktop explicitly, although they may get handed it by default
> if no one else wants it.  But that's a long way off.
>
> In any event, IBM is in bed with Microsoft, and it is not clear
> that they want to get out of bed just yet; stripping Windows
> from all of their consumer-level equipment would not be all that
> profitable for them, methinks.
>
> Yet. :-)
>

The licensing fees for software created by MS is getting more
expensive.  IBM may just want to get the heck out before its too late.
MS has been pushing too hard for upgrades, thinking the kind of money
that was around to take care of Y2K is still around.  MS made its mark
by undercutting the competition before OSS became popular.  Now its not
the "cheapest" product on the block.  I was just floored by how much
they are asking for to support a full array of necessary systems.  XP,
2003 server, IIS, SMS, Office, the list goes on.  IBM may just be
"getting smart" instead of the yarn I was spinning in my previous
posts.

I'm not going to even mention how foolish MS is being by thinking IT
teams will migrate current systems to .NET, oops, I just did.

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, n00b
<advinn@email.com>
 wrote
on 2 Feb 2005 18:11:48 -0800
<1107396708.515233.177440@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>:
>
> The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>> I'm a little worried myself, but for a slightly different reason.
>> IBM's website, at least for consumer level stuff, is pushing XP.
>> It's an odd position, as far as I can tell.
>>
>> It may depend on the gifts.  Are you referring to patents, or
>> engineering development time?
>>
>
> I was referring to the patents, tell me more about the engineering
> development time you speak of...
>
> People have been calling me over the last few months asking me about my
> ERP needs in our company and telling me how IBM could help.  After
> looking at their website I found that the ERP solution they have is
> just as proprietary as any other.  From the site:
>
> # IBM WebSphere� software -- a versatile software platform for
> e-business
> # IBM MQSeries� messaging software that makes it easy for ERP and
> other business applications to exchange information reliably, on IBM
> and non-IBM platforms
> # IBM DB2� -- database management
>
> They may need help porting their software over to Linux or they may
> want to provide a better support team.  The site doesn't say too much
> without having to contact a rep for more answers.  I think from what I
> have seen, IBM is offering to help the ROI equation even if that means
> sending consultants to your business (who may recommend Linux? I don't
> know... I have to keep digging.)  Like consultants are free, lol.  Our
> medium sized company can't afford that kind of consultation and it
> can't afford a migration to any other system from what we have.  It was
> like pulling teeth getting the 15K of capital dollars to pay for an
> upgrade of the very old ERP system we have been using for at least a
> decade.  We are locked in tight.  There are 4 people in my I.T. team, 2
> developers, 1 network admin, and 1 tech.  I wear so many hats as well
> as the other guys.  We are knowledgable and capable, but there is no
> way in heck we could get ourselves out of the bed that we lie in.  We
> have a project list so long that its going to take years to put a dent
> on it.  The business wants I.T., but they don't want to pay that much
> for it.  Me and the other guy create systems at an astounding rate and
> they still complain.  I digress...

Patents are an issue, admittedly, and I for one am not at all sure
whether 17 years is far too long (back in 1988 the beefiest machine
we had at $EMPLOYER might have gotten a few MFLOPS on a good day,
and we might have had 32 MB RAM, if that).

At one point someone -- I have no idea who now -- might have mentioned
that a marketing window was more along the lines of 18 months.

But yeah, some of IBM's solutions might have to be taken with the
customary grain of sodium chloride.

>
>
> IBM's business solutions use IBM proprietary software technology.
>> A possibility.  However, IBM's already been stung by the monopoly
>> bug, too (Amdahl used to supply mainframes), and is probably
>> quietly watching Microsoft's attempts, as well as defending
>> itself against SCO's accusations (and they've not had to put up
>> that much of a defense, so far).
>>
>> I'd think that IBM's leadership is smarter than to try to
>> monopolize the desktop explicitly, although they may get
>> handed it by default if no one else wants it.  But that's
>> a long way off.
>>
>> In any event, IBM is in bed with Microsoft, and it is not
>> clear that they want to get out of bed just yet; stripping
>> Windows from all of their consumer-level equipment would not
>> be all that profitable for them, methinks.
>>
>> Yet. :-)
>>
>
> The licensing fees for software created by MS is getting more
> expensive.  IBM may just want to get the heck out before its too late.
> MS has been pushing too hard for upgrades, thinking the kind of money
> that was around to take care of Y2K is still around.

Bug?  What bug? :-)  If ever there was a slacker bug, the Y2K bug is it.

I'm more worried about 2038 than 2000 at this point.
(Jan 19, 2038, 03:14:08 UTC, to be precise.  That
translates into (time_t) 0x80000000 , or some variant thereof.)

Hopefully by then everyone's gone 64-bit.

> MS made its mark
> by undercutting the competition before OSS became popular.  Now its not
> the "cheapest" product on the block.

I wish I knew for sure.  Linux TCO is less -- but not that much less.
Then again, how does one measure TCO properly?  There's a fair number
of issues here, from the initial investiture in hardware to the
ancillary stuff that has nothing to do with OS (e.g., switches,
wiring, firewalls, etc.).  And then there's ongoing maintenance
of the equipment; Linux or Windows, one still has to clean the
fans on occasion. :-)  (Admittedly, with Linux, things might run
cooler and therefore last slightly longer.  It's hard to say, though.)

> I was just floored by how much
> they are asking for to support a full array of necessary systems.  XP,
> 2003 server, IIS, SMS, Office, the list goes on.  IBM may just be
> "getting smart" instead of the yarn I was spinning in my previous
> posts.
>
> I'm not going to even mention how foolish MS is being by thinking IT
> teams will migrate current systems to .NET, oops, I just did.
>

There are those who refer to it on occasion as .NOT .  If it's
makin a splash, I for one am not seeing it.

-- 
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.

The Ghost In The Machine wrote:

> I wish I knew for sure.  Linux TCO is less -- but not that much less.
> Then again, how does one measure TCO properly?  There's a fair number
> of issues here, from the initial investiture in hardware to the
> ancillary stuff that has nothing to do with OS (e.g., switches,
> wiring, firewalls, etc.).  And then there's ongoing maintenance
> of the equipment; Linux or Windows, one still has to clean the
> fans on occasion. :-)  (Admittedly, with Linux, things might run
> cooler and therefore last slightly longer.  It's hard to say,
though.)

The way I look at it is hardware cost is one thing, software is
another.  TCO should include the cost of maintenance as you say.
Hardware specs are pretty easy to understand for me and the net admin,
so choosing the right equipment comes naturally for us.  Currently we
run a Windows NT 4.0 system all across the board.  Why you ask?  The
fear of Y2K prompted the migration from existing systems.  This choice
was made before I started working where I do and for most companies
around that time it was a good choice.  NT 4.0 was cheap, Linux wasn't
all that known, and the pre-existing system was made up of Novell,
Windows 3.1, and DOS.  We've been on NT 4.0 since '98.  Contrary to
what most Linux advocates say, NT 4 is a decent system.  The servers
need rebooting occasionally and crashes have always been hardware
related.  The workstations work reasonably well, but most of these
desktops have been running for many years so we have them scheduled for
replacement.  I don't see a cost benefit in migrating to Linux based on
our hardware maintenance costs.  The cost benefit I see is that OSS
licensing is free.  How can one argue with free licensing?  Factoring
free licensing into the cost benefit analysis, however, does not make
Linux win hands down like some profess.  To use Linux and OSS
applications I have to factor in migrating all of the software we have
ever created using MS tools.  This totally kills the payback unless you
stretch it out on a long term basis.  Our in-house software needs to be
converted, 22,000 AutoCAD (Windows only software) drawings have to be
migrated to Pro/E, and a new ERP system has to be found or written to
work with Linux (our ERP software is Windows only.)  With only two
developers on staff, that would occupy our time for years.  So, I have
to wait to bring OSS to my company.  In the meantime, I am a hostage to
the systems we have in place.  My estimate is that maybe in 5-6 years
we can take a look at this again.  I'm going to start learning how to
make applications on Linux during the wait.


> There are those who refer to it on occasion as .NOT .  If it's
> makin a splash, I for one am not seeing it.
>

Its a large job to migrate to .NET.  Its a whole new environment and
programming style.  There are so many companies like mine who don't
want to tie up development hours in migration.

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, n00b
<advinn@email.com>
 wrote
on 2 Feb 2005 22:15:42 -0800
<1107411342.443004.229300@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>:
>
> The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
>> I wish I knew for sure.  Linux TCO is less -- but not that much less.
>> Then again, how does one measure TCO properly?  There's a fair number
>> of issues here, from the initial investiture in hardware to the
>> ancillary stuff that has nothing to do with OS (e.g., switches,
>> wiring, firewalls, etc.).  And then there's ongoing maintenance
>> of the equipment; Linux or Windows, one still has to clean the
>> fans on occasion. :-)  (Admittedly, with Linux, things might run
>> cooler and therefore last slightly longer.  It's hard to say,
> though.)
>
> The way I look at it is hardware cost is one thing, software is
> another.  TCO should include the cost of maintenance as you say.
> Hardware specs are pretty easy to understand for me and the net admin,
> so choosing the right equipment comes naturally for us.  Currently we
> run a Windows NT 4.0 system all across the board.  Why you ask?  The
> fear of Y2K prompted the migration from existing systems.  This choice
> was made before I started working where I do and for most companies
> around that time it was a good choice.  NT 4.0 was cheap, Linux wasn't
> all that known, and the pre-existing system was made up of Novell,
> Windows 3.1, and DOS.  We've been on NT 4.0 since '98.  Contrary to
> what most Linux advocates say, NT 4 is a decent system.  The servers
> need rebooting occasionally and crashes have always been hardware
> related.  The workstations work reasonably well, but most of these
> desktops have been running for many years so we have them scheduled for
> replacement.  I don't see a cost benefit in migrating to Linux based on
> our hardware maintenance costs.  The cost benefit I see is that OSS
> licensing is free.  How can one argue with free licensing?  Factoring
> free licensing into the cost benefit analysis, however, does not make
> Linux win hands down like some profess.  To use Linux and OSS
> applications I have to factor in migrating all of the software we have
> ever created using MS tools.  This totally kills the payback unless you
> stretch it out on a long term basis.  Our in-house software needs to be
> converted, 22,000 AutoCAD (Windows only software) drawings have to be
> migrated to Pro/E, and a new ERP system has to be found or written to
> work with Linux (our ERP software is Windows only.)  With only two
> developers on staff, that would occupy our time for years.  So, I have
> to wait to bring OSS to my company.  In the meantime, I am a hostage to
> the systems we have in place.  My estimate is that maybe in 5-6 years
> we can take a look at this again.  I'm going to start learning how to
> make applications on Linux during the wait.

All valid points, as far as I can tell.  Of course, there
is the issue of your employer being dragged kicking and
screaming into the nearest money pit and thrown to the
bottom thereof as NT loses its support. ;-)

But presumably you knew that.  I'm not sure what choice
he (you?) would make in that case.


>
>
>> There are those who refer to it on occasion as .NOT .  If it's
>> makin a splash, I for one am not seeing it.
>>
>
> Its a large job to migrate to .NET.  Its a whole new environment and
> programming style.  There are so many companies like mine who don't
> want to tie up development hours in migration.
>

We have the same problem here; one of our systems is ASP-based.
Migrating it to ASPX/.NET would be about the same as migrating it
to Java/J2EE.  So we'll go J2EE.  But it's a slow process.

-- 
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.

The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
> All valid points, as far as I can tell.  Of course, there
> is the issue of your employer being dragged kicking and
> screaming into the nearest money pit and thrown to the
> bottom thereof as NT loses its support. ;-)
>
> But presumably you knew that.  I'm not sure what choice
> he (you?) would make in that case.
>
>
> We have the same problem here; one of our systems is ASP-based.
> Migrating it to ASPX/.NET would be about the same as migrating it
> to Java/J2EE.  So we'll go J2EE.  But it's a slow process.

Wow, you feel my pain.  .NET is so foreign compared to what we do now,
I started looking at Linux as an alternative.  I figured if I needed to
learn how to program all over again, I might as well learn something
new and maybe do some greater good in the process.  VB6 to .NET
conversions are not too bad, but going from Office to .NET or anything
for that matter is a long uphill climb.  We have created an Office
nightmare around here.  It started before my time and licenses were
purchased for a couple hundred users.

We have begun to upgrade to 2003 server and Windows XP due to there not
being a choice due to time constraints.  Not much I can do about it
now, the decision was made and the money spent before I became the I.T.
manager a few months ago.  The users want faster, newer machines with
XP and Office XP.  They got their wish.  If I would have made the
decision, I probably would have chosen the same.  Our backs are against
the wall, so we pay.  The continued licensing of MS products is a small
fraction of the initial cost.

The Ghost In The Machine <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> espoused:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, n00b
><advinn@email.com>
>  wrote
> on 31 Jan 2005 16:44:43 -0800
><1107218683.786326.132310@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>:
>> It frightens me that IBM is pushing for more Linux.  They have gone to
>> the point of releasing some of their software patents to help spark the
>> growth of Linux.  I for one shudder at the fact that some day companies
>> like IBM may make a power play for the control of Linux software
>> development.  It will not be in ownership rights, because of the GPL.
>> However, if the corporations of the world start "needing" open source,
>> they will try to control and steer its development by offering large
>> "donations" to get what they are depending on.  If open source
>> developers accept these "gifts," they will become dependent on the
>> corporations.
> 
> I'm a little worried myself, but for a slightly different reason.
> IBM's website, at least for consumer level stuff, is pushing XP.
> It's an odd position, as far as I can tell.

Not really.  IBM are a company, their raison d'etre is to make money.
If they can continue to maintain a profitable revenue stream through
selling these things, then they will.  If they can see a way of making
a better margin through migrating their customers onto something else,
they'll look at that, too, but they will *not* drop a profitable revenue
line to make some kind of political statement.  The only thing that would
cause them to drop a revenue line is that if it were to be replaced
with an even more profitable one, or perhaps some other environmental
consideration shows that not dropping it will cost them more than the
revenue is worth (like having a licence withheld, say).

Time will tell here.  Just look at the kind of discussions which were
going on here 4-5 years ago, and see how much they have changed...

<snip>

-- 
| Mark Kent   --   mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk  |
You can rent this space for only $5 a week.

On 2005-02-03, n00b <advinn@email.com> wrote:
>
> The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>> I'm a little worried myself, but for a slightly different reason.
>> IBM's website, at least for consumer level stuff, is pushing XP.
>> It's an odd position, as far as I can tell.
>>
>> It may depend on the gifts.  Are you referring to patents, or
>> engineering development time?
>>
>
> I was referring to the patents, tell me more about the engineering
> development time you speak of...
>
> People have been calling me over the last few months asking me about my
> ERP needs in our company and telling me how IBM could help.  After
> looking at their website I found that the ERP solution they have is
> just as proprietary as any other.  From the site:
>
> # IBM WebSphere� software -- a versatile software platform for
> e-business
> # IBM MQSeries� messaging software that makes it easy for ERP and
> other business applications to exchange information reliably, on IBM
> and non-IBM platforms
> # IBM DB2� -- database management

	What's so proprietary about any of this? Any of these three are
pretty easy to interchange with their competitors. The last two I have 
done so personally.

[deletia]

-- 
....as if the ability to run Cubase ever made or broke a platform.
                                                                  |||
                                                                 / | \