Scott Handy Tells What's Up With IBM and Linux 146
1) Hypocrisy?
by Hobbex
How can IBM reconcile its spoken commitment to Linux and Free software
software with its center-stage activity in projects like CPRM on
harddisks and SDMI for music?
Handy:
I really think these are two entirely separate issues. Our support of
the Open Source movement is based on the belief that with certain
technologies, such as Linux, innovation can be spurred through
collaboration and the free exchange of ideas. Open Source works on the
basic premise of constant change, evolution and improvement of the code by
the community.
On the other hand, our involvement with efforts such as CPRM and SDMI respects the right that some content providers have to protect their intellectual assets if they choose to do so. Technical protection measures are an important way to provide that protection. The content that would be protected here -- most likely music, video and other art forms -- is unlike open source code in that it was is not designed to be modified by the masses or freely distributed. (By the way, CPRM is open -- the cipher and algorithms, along with sample code -- are published.)
For us, what it comes down to is supporting the rights of all content creators to make their own choice. If you want to distribute your intellectual property openly and freely, that's great and we'll support you. As you know, not every software vendor is willing to make that commitment. And if you're an individual or organization that wants or needs to protect your digital content, we will develop solutions that work for you while offering maximum value and ease of use to consumers and helping to create an environment where all Internet content providers coexist peacefully.
2) IBM + Linux = PPC?
by Xoro
IBM makes PowerPCs. Linux runs on PowerPCs. Does IBM's commitment to
Linux imply that they will take the logical step and we will finally see
a commodity (non-Apple) PPC motherboard?
This project always seems to generate so much enthusiasm when presented here or in other forums that its continued non-existence is shocking. Particularly since the PPC's superior electrical characteristics have made it all the more intriguing in the current energy climate.
Handy:
Yes we are very committed to Linux and to our work with PPCs. I've
gotta say, it's a bit of a stretch to say that Linux+PPC "commodity
(non-Apple) PPC motherboards" is the next logical step :-). We have been
working with customers on reference designs using Linux, but we don't have
a board available for general use. The steps we have already taken for
Linux/PPC, includes Linux support on the IBM eServer iSeries and pSeries
which are both PPC based servers. The iSeries is geared toward business
application systems, while the pSeries is squarely aimed at Sun and
addresses the high performance UNIX market. This activity was originally
supported with YellowDog in '99 and 2000, and now includes SuSE, with TL
and RH coming. And, we're currently working with ISVs to support Linux on
the PPC for server apps.
IBM is very active in this area and is currently the maintainer of the Linux PPC tree.
3) Linux vs AIX
by milkmandan9
I work for a fairly small computing firm which relies mainly on AIX but
also has a fair number of Linux boxen around.
In the past few months, the question has come up more than once as to whether AIX or Linux is a more appropriate solution to whatever problem my company is current facing...and often times we've installed Linux on commodity hardware instead of buying a fancy RS/6000 machine and buying another copy of AIX.
My question is that as Linux grows in stability and wider corporate-level acceptance, what's IBM going to do about it? IBM has invested a good deal in the AIX system and I'm sure that they generate a fairly hefty revenue stream from it. Do you foresee any of the IBM Linux initiatives losing funding if they encroach on AIX market share?
Handy:
You're right, we've invested a great deal in AIX and Linux. We've
integrated our AIX and Linux efforts into one strategy for our customers.
Basically, AIX continues to be our industrial-strength, highly scalable
UNIX platform, and we've taken steps to integrate Linux into our UNIX
strategy. Earlier this year we announced a new version of AIX - AIX 5L,
which offers an affinity for Linux, which allows Linux applications to be
easily ported and recompiled on AIX. We also created a new toolkit to
help
Linux developers create applications that take advantage of the affinity
between AIX and Linux. The bottom line is that there is a place for both
AIX and Linux. There are still some applications that require the
industrial strength capabilities of AIX and some that are perfect for
Linux. We work closely with our customers to help them choose the best
solution for their needs.
To answer your second question, no, we don't anticipate any Linux initiatives to lose any funding.
4) PR
by truthsearch
Microsoft's strength is largely in its public relations machine. When
they talk, the media listens. Craig Mundie's (and therefore Microsoft's)
opinion of open source and their own related plans made industry journal
headlines. I'd bet many business managers have learned about MS's
"shared source" plans. But there's no consistantly loud (or heard) front
made against MS statements. Execs hear "open source: bad, shared source:
good" from MS, but don't hear other opinions.
Does IBM plan on investing more in the image of Linux and open source? Will there be strong defensive marketing against MS statements? Do you think a closer balance can be made between pro-Microsoft and pro-Linux marketing?
Handy:
You asked if we plan on investing more in the image of Linux and open
source, well, we're already investing more than a $1 billion in Linux
across the corporation. We continue to talk publicly about Linux and the
open source community regularly. Our execs have been featured keynote
speakers at a couple of LinuxWorld Expos and smaller conferences all
around
the world. We've also been successful in "getting the word out" about
some
big Linux customer wins, which I think has been very helpful in showing
the
corporate community that Linux is ready for primetime.
To answer your second question about striking a balance between pro-Microsoft and pro-Linux marketing, I really can't speak to Microsoft's marketing plans. IBM looks at the Linux space mainly from the server side from a go-to-market perspective. In just a few short years, IDC named Linux as the fastest growing server operating system in the world - second only to Microsoft. To me, that's the area to watch and the area the community should be most proud of its accomplishments.
If you want to see "everything" we're doing on Linux go here: www.ibm.com/linux. It's a lot.
5) IBM Linux distro?
by ddstreet
Given that there are a wealth of Linux distributions already available
in the marketplace, it seems that IBM has to choose one (or more), or
create one (or more).
So, will IBM create a Linux distribution (or multiple distributions)?
If not, why? And what distributions will/has IBM choose to support/market?
If so, why? And will that/those distribution(s) compete with other distributions (i.e. be directly available) or only (or at least primarily) available as part of an IBM 'solution'?
Handy:
To answer your first question, and I get this one all the time, no,
IBM
has no plans to create a Linux distribution. There's no demand for IBM to
create a Linux distribution. Linux is not an IBM operating system, its
the
community's and IBM simply supports and contributes to 1) the community
development effort behind Linux and 2) enablement of our hardware,
software
and services around Linux.
As for which distro's, it's our intent to support our customers by partnering with Linux distribution companies that can help meet their needs. Right now the main three are Red Hat, SuSE and TurboLinux for us and they have agreements with us to provide their distributions on the entire IBM eServer line (xSeries, pSeries, iSeries and zSeries) and they all have software agreements to resell our IBM WebSphere, DB2, Lotus and/or Tivoli software. We also continue to see a variety of Linux distributions emerge to meet the needs of customers in specific geographies and IBM groups work to support opportunities there. For example we continue to partner worldwide with Caldera on our xSeries servers; Mandrake is one of the leaders in France on the client side, so the IBM ViaVoice team supports that distro; and Red Flag is emerging as a strong player in China, so our latest version of DB2 database supports Red Flag, etc. We also work with MonteVista and Lineo and are also increasing our support of Debian overall (we've actually had some level of support for them all along).
6) OS/2
by twitter
How do you approach your OS/2 users? Does IBM plan to move them to Linux
platforms? Will any of the OS/2 goodies, like the presentation manager's
link database, move to Linux?
Handy:
Like any other customer, we listen to the needs of our OS/2 customers,
and based on those needs, we help them choose how to move forward. I'm
quite well versed in these customer situations and can tell you they have
a
very diverse set of needs. Some lead to very different conclusions. Some
of
our OS/2 customers want to stay with OS/2 as long as they can, and some
are
ready to move off of it sooner rather than later. So with that said, if
the
application they are using or want to move to can be easily moved to Linux
or is available on Linux, that is an excellent option. This works great if
its Java-based or if it runs on our middleware (DB2, WebSphere, Lotus,
Tivoli) a lot of which already works on Linux. In this scenario, a direct
move works really well.
On the client, if they are ready to move, we usually find that they need to move to Windows, but Linux is sometimes a viable alternative if they can use browser based apps or use one of the many office suites available on Linux that can meet productivity app requirements. (and some of these OS/2 clients are basically fixed function intelligent "terminals" with home grown applications only - and for those apps it depends on the tools they used to create them and whether those tools are available on Linux and/or Windows).
On the server, some customers want to stay on OS/2 for a few more years, make the move to Windows 2000 or Linux, or some combination, depending on the application requirements of the customer. These are sophisticated customers who generally use OS/2 for advanced functions so their needs vary greatly.
On to goodies, some of the OS/2 goodies have moved to Linux, like the JFS we just announced as GA on June 30th, was from the OS/2 base.
Now on your one specific PM example, I've never actually heard of "presentation manager's link database" and asked some PM developers in Austin and they couldn't quite surmise what you were getting at so I'm not sure what I'm really answering there. My guess is it is a resource link (DLL) specific to PM that would not directly work easily with KDE or GNOME or it would have been done with a .SO already.
7) Linux for the 400...
by Ryan_Terry
As a customer who has been with IBM for years we are looking at retiring
some of our old AS/400's. We are trying to find other uses for them, and
with over 100GB of disk Linux makes an attractive option, but we are
saddened to see that IBM seems to have made no effort to try to support
Linux at all on the 400.
With the recent support IBM has been giving to the Linux community are there any plans to start devoting resources to the Linux on the as/400 project?
Handy:
Actually, we've already done the work on that server. Today, the IBM
eServer iSeries (formerly the AS/400) runs Linux as well as OS/400
starting
with models 270's and 8xx. We've seen an increased interest from our
customers and Business Partners for Linux-based solutions for the iSeries
-- it's a great configuration for customers who want to consolidate
workloads from a variety of other servers in their shop to run on the
Linux
LPAR (logical partition) in their iSeries.
If you're interested in more detail, here's the Web site: www.ibm.com/eserver/iseries/linux.
8) Hard Numbers for Soft Heads
by Dr. Smeegee
I work for a very, very, very huge company that still uses quite a few
MS products.
Several other like-minded folks across many of the daughter business have recently begun trying to formulate a plan of attack viz. Linux acceptance.
I assume when IBM pitches Linux to corporations you have some sort of metric that gauges linux against other os's and shows various strengths and weaknesses.
Are these metrics/comparisons available to the general public? Preferably in management friendly .ppt format? :-)
Handy:
While we have a great deal of focus on Linux, IBM supports multiple
operating systems. In the IBM Software Group for instance, MQSeries runs
on 35 platform - which is an amazing number. With that many OSs out in
the
market, I've never seen a customer chart like the one you described,
showing the strengths and weaknesses between the particular OSs.
The information we use, that really resonates with customers, shows the basic market acceptance of Linux which is based on the IDC figures which place Linux as the fastest growing server operating system in the world, second only to Windows in volume, on the server. We also point to the projected growth rate of Linux being higher than Windows thru 2004.
If I had to hand management something with data points and a fancy format, I'd hand them this April/May 2001 - Linux edition of Management Directions which can be viewed/downloaded from: here (note: PDF is 2MB)
9) MS Office Filters and Lotus Notes for Linux
by Dr. Evil
In my opinion Linux has a long way to go before it can make it to the
home desktop. Ease of use is one of the greatest inhibitors. However,
the corporate desktop has very different requirements. Security, remote
management, reliablility, simple license management and at the same
time, a corporate desktop requires only a handful of very clearly
defined employee responsibilities.
As I see it, the greatest limitation Linux experiences on the corporate desktop is interfacing with customers running MS Office, and secondly, Linux lacks a corporate email package. That requirement could be filled quite perfectly by Lotus Notes.
Is IBM taking steps to sell Linux on the corporate desktop as a simple and secure alternative to Microsoft's mindbogglingly complex Licensing and questionable security? If so, what is being done to address the lack of MS Office document compatability, and the lack of a client email/database package such as Lotus Notes?
Handy:
We're working to help the Linux OS on all fronts with server activity
as a priority, especially in helping it scale in the enterprise. In
general, we're helping on the client side (with our support of KDE and
GNOME and other client oriented open source projects) and working on
embedded Linux projects too.
As for development priorities of our own commercially licensed software, we're focused on where Linux's market penetration is strongest and where the opportunity for market acceptance is the highest. We see the demand most clearly on the server. Based on that feedback, our development of DB2, WebSphere, Lotus and Tivoli software is predominantly focused on the server side. Our strategy is to support browser based access from Linux desktops to our server based software (like using a browser to access WebSphere Application Server on the Server). In the case of our Lotus Domino for Linux offer, it's important to understand that browser users on the Linux desktop have full access to Lotus Webmail and can also access Domino collaborative applications from their browsers. Right now, we're not planning native ports of Lotus Notes or Lotus SmartSuite to Linux desktops since the demand from our customers just isn't there yet.
10) Open Source and Patents
by Johnath
First off, by way of disclaimer, I'm an IBM employee, but am posting
this as an individual and am quite sure my manager neither knows nor
cares about the contents of my question. :)
It's great to see that IBM is committing to an open approach, both in their specific funding of Linux development, but also in their more general push to use open, standard technologies like XML and Java, and to participate in the standards process. On the other hand, IBM holds more patents than any other business in the world, by a fair majority, and what's more, are quite proud of this standing. Now I am not at all knocking IBMs desire to produce patentable technology, and I do think it is indicative of their technological leadership that they have acquired them,
but...
I'm wondering how IBM's dedication to openness will interact with their commitment to producing patentable technology. Will IBM's contributions to open source projects include these patentable ideas, and will open source projects in which IBM participates be licensed to employ said ideas, even to freely distribute software based on them? If IBM is willing to do this, how will they ensure that their patented IP is not picked up and incorporated into competing products? If not, could you give us some insight into the decision making process as regards these patents, and why IBM's openness strategy does not extend to them?
Handy:
Well, there's a lot to answer in this question. First of all, we
don't think open source software and intellectual property rights are
mutually exclusive - for IBM, it's not an either or proposition. As you
noted, we strongly support the open source movement and believe the
community contributes significantly to innovation in the industry. We
also
believe we employ some of the best and brightest developers in the world
and that our work on IP projects encourage innovation, as well. As you
probably know, we work with the community on various open source projects
by providing technical input, as well as code. IBM's decision to make
code
available to the open source community is based on interest from the
community. Before we open source code, we want to make sure there will be
enough support from the community to propel the technology forward. We've
been active in Apache, Mozilla and JFS to name just a few.
More info here on our open source efforts and contributions: www.ibm.com/developerworks/opensource/.
Intellectual property FUD (Score:1)
Has everybody forgotten the problems caused by the Lotus crappy protection and by dongles? Maybe this time they've got it right. Let them contractually comit to paying consequential damages and I'll be willing to be a guinea pig. But the smart money says that if they get away with it, the honest consumer will end up suffering.
Hyprocrites. (Score:2)
Or for that matter, preach "Open Source", use FreeBSD as the core to what used to be the WhistleJet, and yet no support for the BSD's?
How about the sabbotoge of FreeBSD on the A20 ThinkPads?
Hey, thanks for the detailed answers. (Score:2)
Re:you're overreacting (Score:2)
Re:They don't walk the walk (Score:2)
Still, I think people would be extremely happy to just see some documentation put up on how to communicate with Notes servers. I know that Notes support is one of the big questions hanging over the Evolution mailer, for instance..
--
Copy Protection (Score:2)
I agree. But, there's a difference between protecting copyright and crippling hardware. The goal of CPRM is essentially that of a curfew-- curtail the legitimate rights of individuals by creating an artificial barrier in the hopes of stifling a few crimes.
CPRM, DMCA, etc, all assume one thing: everyone is a criminal, and will act in a criminal way if given the chance.
Re:Good things, certainly. (Score:2)
If you build it, they will come (Score:5)
Strange. The (perceived) lack of a solid office suite for Linux is the biggest thing holding back the desktop. Yet IBM isn't porting SmartSuite because nobody is using Linux on the desktop.
I've used StarOffice and a couple of the other suites, and they're good. But I think that IBM SmartSuite(TM) showing up on the Linux desktop would really make some waves and drive acceptance of the Linux desktop.
Actually, I'd hoped that Corel's office suite would pull this off, but it never got off the ground.
C'mon IBM - let's see that port! Heck, you could still charge for it. MS Office sets the price of office suites pretty high, so there's money to be made.
Food for thought.
Re:If you build it, they will come (Score:5)
Where I see potential is with corporations considering linux on the desktop for price, each of support, remote support, simple licensing etc., but holding back for lack of applications. The office suite is the killer app, and something that no IT director will mess with lightly.
Offer them SmartSuite - an honest-to-gosh integrated office suite by IBM, no less. Fully compatible with MS Office, and future development assured.
I work in telecom and my current and previous employers had *thousands* of people answering phones and doing the vast majority of their work through browsers, telnet sessions, etc. With a linux desktop, they'd gain the advantages I mentioned above. Throw SmartSuite on there, and Customer Service reps could still open/compose the occasional document or spreadsheet and share it with the rest of the company.
Dunno. Seems like a viable option to me.
LOL (Score:1)
I shudder to think about what happens when you try moving an app to another drive in Windows... *shudder* see? :)
Re:hmmm (Score:1)
There might have been an additional factor. I don't know if this was still true at the point when OS/2 got slaughtered in the marketplace
I don't know about the theory you present, but I have an additional factor to add as well. When OS/2 got slaughtered, as I understand it, it was largely due to the fact that you couldn't buy OS/2 without also paying for Windows due to Microsoft's per-processor (and later per-machine) licensing. Who wants to pay that much? Not many apparently.
Re:Digital Rights Management vs. Free Software (Score:1)
You completely miss the point.
Of course the average end user lacks the skills to modify and adapt the source. Your average accountant can't understand the source to his spreadsheet, but he can find someone who does. If having feature X in program Y is going to make or break his business, he can quite easily contract out to a development firm to add feature X to open source program Y, and it doesn't matter what the agenda of program Y's original authors is. Doing this with proprietary code would require recoding the application from the ground up which is almost always cost prohibitive. This is the essential difference. This is the end user's power.
Re:Digital Rights Management vs. Free Software (Score:2)
Are DRM technologies at odds with the principles of Free Software? Sure, that's an easy argument to make. But it's completely off-topic, because it has nothing to do with what Handy said.
My point exactly. It has nothing to do with what Handy said and everything to do with what Handy failed to say.
It's not possible to build DRM into a Free Software system. It just won't work. If you support DRM systems like SDMI, you're putting media out there which is fundamentally incompatible with Free systems. You can try to separate DRM technologies and Open Source software, but doing so means that you're going to keep Open Source systems off the desktop and, in many cases off the server, indefinitely as long as there is DRM controlled media out there that customers want to use. Saying that you support both is a paradox. What's interesting is that Handy tip toes around this paradox and makes a hand waving argument about the author's right to choose without mentioning any of the implications of supporting the technological enforcement of such rights.
Re:You mistake "I am able" with "I am allowed" (Score:2)
No, I do not. I fully understand the difference and I also fully support the all of the rights of copyright holders up to but not including the DMCA.
You say, I'm just copying numbers
I said no such thing. The "information wants to be free" or "it's just numbers" arguments are bunk and we all know that. Copyright exists for a reason and we should support it, but there needs to be a balance between the copyright holder's rights and the end user's right. DRM technologies tip the scales too far in favor of the rights holders.
Just because someone leaves their door unlocked doesn't give you the right to enter their house and take pictures of it.
Of course not, but, if you sell me a picture of your house, you shouldn't have the right to come in to my house and tell me where I can or can not hang it. DRM controls how the end user is able to make use of purchased copyrighted material, something which was never before allowed prior to the DMCA. This is going too far.
The only "risk" I see DRM posing to Open Source products, is that they may not get support for some multimedia apps that Win/Mac does.
But this is the problem. It's not a "risk" or something that might "limit" the growth of Linux on the desktop. It's the fundamental killer of free software at home. As broadband becomes more popular and streaming audio and video from the net becomes ubiquitous, any operating system that can't make use of the media out there is dead. It doesn't make a damn bit of difference what alternative tools free software coders release, if people can't view the media they want, they'll stay away from free systems.
Combatting these kinds of technology is best done on multiple fronts. Yes, contacting senators and such is a good idea, but even the complete repeal of the DMCA is not sufficient to combat DRM technologies. The repeal of the DMCA would make breaking DRM legal again, but it would not make the impossition of DRM illegal. Therefore we still need technological countermeasures to break these systems as they're introduced.
Digital Rights Management vs. Free Software (Score:4)
The main purpose of Free Software is to place the power of the computer fully within the hands of the end user. With Free Software, the end user is capable of doing anything that can conceivably be done with the machine. DRM technologies work the other way around. They rely on manufacturers or closed source software developers to cripple the machine in ways that prohibit the end user from performing certain actions which the machine would otherwise be able to do.
I don't think you can reconcile these two approaches. You can not simultaneous provide the end user complete and total control over the hardware that he owns and still have digital rights management in place. There simply is no way for these two ideals to coexist peacefully since they are diametrically opposed to one another.
Re:Argh! (Score:1)
Er, I obviously meant ported from OS/2 (to Linux). Sorry.
Re:Presentation Manager port. (Score:1)
Please see my other post [slashdot.org].
Seriously, you don't want Presentation Manager.
Re:Argh! (Score:1)
> Not quite; WPS relies on PM for some facilities that are not present in X.
Like what, for example? AFAIK the WPS is only dependent on PM because it uses the PM to draw itself and the desktop, etc. and also uses the PM window classes to draw the windows for the class's "views" (open folder windows, etc.). Correct me if I'm wrong.
Naturally, it would take a bit of effort to port it to native X (different widgets, painting routines, awareness of window manager(s), and the like; PM is very different from X and is more like Win16/32 GUI API, I believe), but surely you aren't suggesting that WPS is tied down to PM in such a way that it would be impossible to have a port that was independent of PM and instead used another GUI? I seriously doubt that.
Re:Argh! (Score:1)
> ...and also uses the PM window classes to draw the windows for the class's "views" (open folder windows, etc.).
Sorry, that was worded pretty badly. What I meant was, "and also uses the PM window classes to draw the windows for a WPS class's 'views'." (This will make sense to most anyone who has interacted with WPS classes extensively and/or has done some WPS and PM programming.)
Argh! (Score:5)
Uh, guys? It's the Workplace Shell (WPS) from OS/2 that you want (the SOM-based object-oriented desktop system), not Presentation Manager (merely the GUI API; we've got X and we don't need this).
I really would have liked to have seen an answer to the question of whether or not we will ever see Workplace Shell and SOM opened up and then ported to OS/2, but alas, the question was not phrased correctly and was thus (understandably) misunderstood by Mr. Handy and the OS/2 development team he consulted.
Maybe a follow-up interview is in order? ...
Re:If you build it, they will come (Score:2)
and (like many IBM OS/2 plans) as soon as the product became stable, they stopped working on it.
MS didn't kill OS/2, IBM killed OS/2
If IBM wants to make ammends for the OS/2 debacle, they would port the Workplace Shell to Linux/BSD/Unix. The Workplace Shell was and still is the finest GUI design on the planet. [shields up]A stable port of WPS for Linux would at least show the KDE/Gnome teams what a GREAT desktop should be.[shields down]
On linux users paying for SmartSuite, I fully agree, it's just not gonna happen, however for a business, they could use the savings on those free copies of Linux to convert their office apps :-)
Your job (Score:2)
Echelon?
__
Re:Hyprocrites. (Score:1)
I had a laptop die on me that I installed FreeBSD (read: the machine wouldn't even go into the bios to set boot device order)
IBM's solution? Buy a new harddrive, because you screwed up the one we shipped you.
My solution? I had to use a laptop mini-ide to IDE adaptor and reformat the harddisk.
Later I found out that a bios update fixed this problem.
All is well now, and FreeBSD works swimingly on the IBM a20.
-Peter
Re:They don't walk the walk (Score:1)
Re:Talk is cheap..... (Score:3)
IBM has an absolutely dismal history in marketing. If you want to know how to take a technically superior product and kill it by not saying anything, look to IBM. I was an OS/2 user for years before switching to linux. Basically what it comes down to is that IBM goes to big corporate execs, and works with them to find a solution that is "best" for them. M$, on the other hand, makes lots of noise, flaps its wings, and dumps a lot of money into creating public opinion. IMHO M$ has one of the best marketing departments in the world.
IBM has no interest in blowing money on public opinion. It's not their gig. They sell big honking server iron. They don't care what runs on it. They've just got to sell that iron. Don't expect IBM to do dick for linux's public image, unless you count sales data and contributed software as part of the public image. (which is absolutely great of them...don't get me wrong)
--Bob
Re:If you build it, they will come (Score:2)
uh... you've never actually used smart suite have you? WordPro and 123 can both *export* a sizable subset of their features to the coresponding MS formats, but they have the same problem that any open solution will have in terms of reading back MS files. There are a number of things Smart Suite can't handle. Anything with VB Script imbeded in it is a perfect example.
A couple months ago I was asked to review a document produced by someone at a major Linux distro. The file was in MS Excel format. I attempted to open it with all my linux applications... none could handle it, so I rebooted to windows and tried to pull it up in 123... got more of it, but still wasn't able to make sense out of it because the markup that was referenced wasn't present. I finally sent the file home and opened it with an old copy of Excel where I printed it to a postscript file and sent it back to the office, the next day the postscript file was converted to pdf and distributed to the rest of the team.
What we really need to do is just get away from the MS file formats. The document above had no need to be in excell format, it was nothing more than an annotated list, it could have been delivered in any number of formats, not the least of which was plain ascii text (the format I returned the data in).
So why did a open source company use a MS file format to send this data to us? "because it's the industry standard." Screw that. We don't need another format, we need an open standard.
You mistake "I am able" with "I am allowed" (Score:4)
You are mistaking the fact that you currently have the ability to digitally copy a piece of music or video or program with the idea that you have the right to do so. You don't. When you do so, you break the law. Except in _limited_ fair use circustances. Giving a copy to your friend, does not qualify fair use. Making a documentary about music and using a clip does.
You say, I'm just copying numbers, I'm not actually taking anything. Just because someone leaves their door unlocked doesn't give you the right to enter their house and take pictures of it. Even though that doesn't take anything of theirs either.
The only "risk" I see DRM posing to Open Source products, is that they may not get support for some multimedia apps that Win/Mac does. And while this might limit the growth potential of Linux on the Desktop, that makes a very large assumption that Linux could ever make it on the Desktop anyways. It still doesn't stop Open Source developers from creating their own multimedia tools and porting them to Windows/Mac so there's free tools for everyone (Gimp).
You gripe about the technology. It's a waste of your time and effort, it won't yield the results you want. That's because you're griping about the symptom, not the disease. DRM technologies are mearly tools created to enforce the law. Instead, gripe about the laws to your senator, and try to change peoples opinion about buying music or producing music under such restrictions. While it's a long shot, at least it has a chance, unlike your current method. Change the laws, or better yet producers attitudes towards DRM, and all of a sudden there's no need for it.
Re:They don't walk the walk (Score:2)
Complete nonanswer (Score:2)
--
Re:Good things, certainly. (Score:1)
Re:CPRM Open??? (Score:2)
They say, once burnt, twice shy, but I was a slow learner. So I'm also going to be slow to convince that this time it's safe.
There is nothing about CPRM that sounds like it is intended for my benefit. So I won't buy it. Somebody else will sell what I want, and I'd be willing to pay more than a 20% bonus to avoid hardware copy protection.
Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.
Re:If you build it, they will come (Score:1)
With an acknowledgement that I might be in a small but vocal minority, in my case, you'd be wrong. If IBM released Smartsuite on Linux, I'd be online buying something like 30 seconds after it became available. In fact, I would contribute development time to porting it, because next to the M$ hegenomy, Smartsuite has consistently been a good choice for many of my smaller clients.
Most of whom I would like to migrate to Linux, (preferably before what little MS support is left for the Win9X operating system completely evaporates), but without requiring them to endure the heavy pains of relearning a new app suite. Aside from which I would love to have a Linux, Lotus-script enabled version of Approach for my family to use and learn on.
That, a corporate-grade email app, and end-to-end MIDI capability would be enough for me to banish all MS software from my home machine permanently.
SmartSuite couldn't save OS-2 from bad IBM choices (Score:1)
It wasn't lack of software that killed OS/2 in the early days. It was the fact that Big Blue didn't catch a clue that the keys to selling any current OS are #1) quality device drivers for darn near every imaginable combination of hardware, and #2) a commitment to providing inexpensive, powerful development tools to the small- and mid- level programming shops. Which is why I never invested much time beyond first looks and did not buy the OS/2 Smartsuite.
Of course, it hasn't helped since that OS/2 was so heavily X86 that for all practical purposes it couldn't be ported, or that Big Blue couldn't seem to market their way out of a paper bag back then.
Re: OS 2 on other platforms. (Score:1)
What I do know is that I tried various flavors of OS-2 on several different generations of x86 PCs, with fairly generic video and audio cards, etc.
It was never a seemless install, and the resulting setups never stabilized to the extent that I was willing to entrust transferring my client's to an OS that I couldn't count on finding broad based support for.
Interestingly enough, I am recommending that some of these users move to Linux, because even without a single monolithic corporation, support for most things linux is only a mouse click or two away from someone else on the WWW who knows how to solve a specific problem.
Re:Good things, certainly. (Score:3)
Regardless, just don't install lm_sensors - there are plenty of gnome and several windowmaker dockapplets that use it.
--
Evan
What about walking the walk on the desktop (Score:2)
You, however, (and presumably others) use it as a desktop OS within IBM.
How about a grass roots effort from users within IBM to get the corporate powers-that-be to consider a bigger effort to push Linux onto the desktop as well. Granted, Handy mentions that there isn't much demand yet from customers. IBM is a big industry mover, however, and a bit of unilateral movement in that directoy might help CREATE a bigger market. Classic chicken-and-egg problem.
Take Notes for example. In my own case, and in the case of many posters I've seen, the notes client is the last thing keeping me from making a complete switch to Linux. If IBM were to start with this one application, they might be surprised at the level of demand that would be generated.
The OS/2 version of SmartSuite was REALLY bad (Score:3)
Now, I agree that a GOOD port of SmartSuite, and particularly Notes client, would help bolster Linux as a desktop OS in corporate environments, but it would have to be done correctly, as a high quality native port of the CURRENT versions of the Windows applications, and it would be an uphill battle, since by now SmartSuite is off most PHB's radar screens.
Unfortunately, as Mr. Handy said outright, IBM has little interest in pushing Linux onto the desktop anyway.
Re:LOL (Score:1)
Either way, in Linux you would have to change some things hear and there as well. Not nearly as bad as Windows however. No registry keeping paths, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Argh! (Score:1)
The PM (Secondary GUI shell) can be compare with shell's like the KDE (Is KDE the thertiary shell ??).
The Object Orientation (SOM) of the WPS should then the integrated in either the X-Server or the Window Manager (I think...I'm not really used to *NIX terms..I mean the layer between the Shell (KDE) and the XServer).
But it should be based on the current Linux CORBA implementation instead of the old IBM CORBA implementation, known as SOM. AFAIR SOM was abandoned in 1997 or 1998, in a beta stage of version 3 and given free. AFAIR it was also ported to AIX and Windows, in relation to the OpenDOC technology. This is why I do not believe IBM would do it. You are looking for something like the FreeOS project (Goal is to make an OpenSource version of OS/2, at first based on Linux technology)
live long and prosper...
you're overreacting (Score:4)
distribution media is their choice. deal with it.
AND, part of the cipher involves a 256 byte "secret number" which can only be obtained if you sign a license agreement. Sounds REALLY open to me.
in crypto circles this "secret number" is called the "key". do you really expect them to give you the key to their encryption scheme??
Scott, Please answer the Patent question! (Score:4)
IBM's current strategy regarding Patents does not appear to be about gaining a monopoly in patented areas, but instead seems focused on 3 main areas:
- To defend against Lawsuits: If company ABC threatens to sue over IBM's use of ABC patent #nnnnn, then IBM can threaten suit over ABC's use of IBM Patent #mmmmm.
- To prevent IBM lockout:Anyone writing software that is covered by an IBM Patent must reach an agreement with IBM. This gives IBM the opportunity to structure the agreement in a way that insures IBM will not be locked out of future progress in the area covered by her Patents.
- To reach into non-IBM Patent areas: IBM can use cross-licensing agreements to extend her reach into areas not covered by IBM Patents.
I believe all these areas can be enhanced by IBM making a subset of her Patents available under both proprietary agreements, and the GPL (or similar). I suggest that allowing some IBM Patents to be used in GPL software will increase the value of those Patents, without harm to IBM. Drastically decreasing the time and expense required to use IBM Patents will stimulate the use of said Patents and thus increase their value. In the field of Software, there is nothing more worthless than unused (or under utilized) Patents.Open Source could benefit the 3 areas as follows:
- To defend against Lawsuits:ABC's proprietary products would still be open to Patent -based countersuits by IBM. In addition, IBM could make use of ABC's Open Source products without the threat of lawsuit. This is probably the area that requires the most legal attention from IBM. It may be that some Patents may lose thier defensive weapon status if allowed to be used in Open Source. I believe this would not be the case for many -- if not most -- IBM Patents.
- To prevent IBM lockout:IBM can remain actively involved in the use and development of GPLed software that uses her Patents, without the need for an expensive, time consuming, proprietary agreement. A big win for IBM.
- To reach into non-IBM Patent areas:IBM could still enter into cross licensing agreements as before, but IBM's contribution of Patents to Open Source could stimulate other companies to contribute Open Source software in areas not covered by IBM Patents. IBM could immediately use and extend this software without the need for expensive and time consuming cross licensing agreements. A big win for IBM.
Of course, IBM could be hotly debating this issue internally right now. Lawyers are doing research, a policy is being hammered out, and IBM does not want to release half-baked information regarding use of her Patents. If this is the case, please give us a hint that the Patent issue is being considered within IBM. We are patient, we can waitOn the other hand, it may be that IBM does not think people are interested in this issue, or IBM does not want to deal with it. If this is the case, please know that many people, including myself, consider Patents to be the number one contribution that IBM can make to Open Source.
I will even go so far as to recommend to IBM that she keep her $1 Billion and open up some useful Patents instead!
Jonathan Weesner
San Antonio, TX
Re:A cooler interview would have been... (Score:2)
http://www-personal.umd.umich.edu/~nhughes/htmldo
Google [google.com] is your friend...
Re:If you build it, they will come (Score:1)
Re:They don't walk the walk (Score:4)
No idea how much of the corporation does use Linux, and the internal software pages mostly concern themselves with only Windows and AIX, but I've never gotten any "anti-Linux" vibes here. The closest I ever got was when I had to attend a session on open-source development at IBM. Seemed to be healthy paranoia - not "don't use and contribute to free software", but "if you contribute to free software at all let us know beforehand, so we can screen your work to make sure we don't violate any licenses."
Re:If you build it, they will come (Score:2)
You know not what you asketh.
Lotus is a very MicroSoft centered company, and (at least they used to) are very jealous of their Lotus (vs IBM) identity. Their port to OS/2 was a buggy POS. Several companies followed the same pattern:
-the community cries out for a port
-the company make a half-assed attempt at a port to 'gauge the community interest'
-the community balks at the crash prone POS
-the company ignores the complaints, only looking at the bottom line instead, decides that there really isn't any interest from the purchasing part of the community, and shitcans the project
Consider that a Windows->OS/2 port is a much simpler affair than Windows->Linux, since the former are decendants of the same bloodline. I predict that any Note's port from Lotus will be a sham designed to convince upper management that noone in the Linux community is willing to pay for Lotus' software; thereby, relieving them of the burden to having to make software that runs on more than one platform.
Not the best of plans, IMHO, seeing how MS Outlook continues to eat their lunch and will continue to do so as long as MS dictates the OS. But, heh, I'm just a guy watching it all happen. What do I know?
Re:Presentation Manager port. (Score:1)
I'll say. Back in 94 (Warp 3.0) before Windows 95 came out, I was convinced that IBM had a great product that would beat Win95 into the ground. Technically, it beat it all to hell. Flat memory model, true multitasking etc. etc. etc. The biggest thing was usability. I installed it into an office full of technophobe bookkeepers and they loved it. The true strength of OS/2 has always been the WPS. Object based, not oriented, moving targets automatically updated links (shortcuts for the MS challenged) and many other great usability features. Legendary stability (ask any Canadian bank what they run at the teller and inside the ATM) and yet... it wasn't enough. As soon as Mick and the boys "Started Up" it became apparent that a shoddy, poorly concieved, bug riddled piece of rabbit dung was going to win. Some say good MS marketing, bad IBM marketing, I say it was a case of an entire industry being bought and paid for with FUD and promises of a better world.
I still use OS/2, mainly for dabbling in REXX and playing with. It's still the coolest OS out there.
Re:Presentation Manager port. (Score:1)
Re:They don't walk the walk (Score:1)
Re:They don't walk the walk (Score:5)
That doesn't immediately mean that their commitment to the platform isnt there. If a Honda salesment drives a Dodge pickup instead, it doesn't immediately that Honda's suck. They just don't suit his needs.
Dirk
But in some cases I should be allowed. (Score:2)
The bargain is this: the public grants exclusive copyrights to a work for a limited time to the creators or their asignees, in return for the public using that work as they see fit (other than creating commercial copies).
Viewed in this light, the idea of digital rights management is not inherently bad -- it can serve a good purpose. It addresses the problem that computer technology has made copyrights harder for the copyright holders to police.
However, the problem is other things that are being slipped into the bargain under the rubric of copyright management. First, it limits the rights of members of the public to use the work as they see fit (for example, fair use copies). Second, encrypting a work essentially extends the copyright holder's control over it in perpetuity.
In other words, DRM as I understand it is now envisioned doesn't just enforce the bargain between copyright holders and the public (as well it should). It fundamentally changes the bargain to the detriment of the public. This is why participating in the development of DRM technologies is a potentially a reprensible thing -- apart from whether you think open/free software is a good thing or not.
I think DRM technologies should be legally required to meet the following requirements:
(1) The consumer should have the ability to have digital keys which will unlock the copyrighted material on ANY device which they own.
(2)Illegal key sharing should be technologically discouraged, perhaps by requiring that installation of a key on a device be mediated by a trusted key management service.
(3) Consumers should be able to obtain a special key that permanently unlocks a specific work that has fallen into the public domain for some reason. The term of copyright enforcement would be ended by the distribution of this key. This would allow the legal system of a country to extend copyright terms OR abridge them. It would also allow works to fall into the public domain by other means.
These changes would give the public an equal footing in striking the copyright bargain. It should not be within the power of any private entity to alter the nature of this bargain -- either by unauthorized duplication of copyrighted works, or by interfering with legal copying of works it does not own, or by excercising extralegal control over uses of works that it happens to own copyright to.
Re:They don't walk the walk (Score:1)
I used to be religious before, but I'm quite agnostic now. The important thing is to be able to do your job well and fast. "Eating your own dogfood" is _only_ useful to weed out defects in the product. Not to satisfy some meaningless jihad.
I mean, Sun's gotta get a clue. They are a non-entity in the client space. Why force their non-techies to use Sun boxes ?
Finally don't even talk about costs. I'm sure it's much much cheaper to get the employees x86 boxes from whoever. More importantly, think of all those powerful SPARC chips (which were designed for I/O intensive systems) being wasted on X !! They are best used with Sun's customers.
Re:They don't walk the walk (Score:4)
Re:They don't walk the walk (Score:1)
--
Re:They don't walk the walk (Score:1)
--
re: IBM's commitment to User Hostile Technology (Score:2)
I really think these are two entirely separate issues. Our support of the Open Source movement is based on the belief that with certain technologies, such as Linux, innovation can be spurred through collaboration and the free exchange of ideas. Open Source works on the basic premise of constant change, evolution and improvement of the code by the community.
It is interesting to note that IBM does not believe that collaboration and free exchange of ideas are good ideas in general (especially in light of image they are trying to uphold), but that being beside the point so I won't linger on it.
On the other hand, our involvement with efforts such as CPRM and SDMI respects the right that some content providers have to protect their intellectual assets if they choose to do so. Technical protection measures are an important way to provide that protection. The content that would be protected here -- most likely music, video and other art forms -- is unlike open source code in that it was is not designed to be modified by the masses or freely distributed.
Regardless of goal at hand, CPRM and SDMI are both software mesaures. They function by the software on my computer acting against my interest on behalf of a copyright holder. Software that is open for the user to study and change, and software that acts against him in order to control his actions, are contradicitory and not the slightest bit independent.
CPRM and SDMI act to "respect the rights" of some "cotent providers" by suppressing the very freedoms that Free and open software grant, and suppress the effects of innovation that those freedoms grant us. IBM must know that it is total bullshit to claim that they are seperate or can coexist as philosophies.
(By the way, CPRM is open -- the cipher and algorithms, along with sample code -- are published.)
Oh, so you mean that should I buy a computer that has been infected with IBM CPRM technology, I will be able to modify to my own liking the CPRM code in it. I'm so sorry I didn't understand that [/deep dripping sarcasm].
For us, what it comes down to is supporting the rights of all content creators to make their own choice. If you want to distribute your intellectual property openly and freely, that's great and we'll support you. As you know, not every software vendor is willing to make that commitment. And if you're an individual or organization that wants or needs to protect your digital content, we will develop solutions that work for you while offering maximum value and ease of use to consumers and helping to create an environment where all Internet content providers coexist peacefully.
Except that the people to whoom you are pushing the computers implementing the "solutions that offer the maximum value for [content providers]" are not individuals and organisations that want it, but those who you are trying ensnare by binding this technology to hardware standards that they do not know to, and often cannot, avoid.
The question is whether IBM is committed to, via free and open software, allow users to regain the freedom of control over their own computers that have been robbed of them at the hands of Microsoft, or if IBM is committed to finally and irrevocably take away that control in order to befenfite those who would seek gain the maximum value from your consumers. In a way, I feel you just answered it.
Re:Digital Rights Management vs. Free Software (Score:2)
If somebody is keeping me from steeling by locking MY door so I cannot go outside I damn well have cause to complain. Under certain conditions it may well be justified, it may well be justified to do so (it is called being thrown jail), but threshhold before my freedoms are removed in such a manner must be large (which is why before we throw people in jail, we have courts, reasonable doubt, and inocent until proven guilty).
IBMs technology proposes to lock everybody's digital doors, guilty or not, and give the keys to corporations who can let us out only when they are sure they will be able control us. You may submit yourself to a collective jailing of the entire population of the Internet because you believe that the potential to share an MP3 is such a heinious crime, but I sure as hell will not.
Re:you're overreacting (Score:2)
in crypto circles this "secret number" is called the "key". do you really expect them to give you the key to their encryption scheme??
If my computer is encrypting and decrypting things with that key, then fucking hell yes I expect to have access to it. For all the talk of property rights, the FUCKware proponents are quick to forget who the terminals belong to...
Re:Digital Rights Management vs. Free Software (Score:2)
And if it is legal? Technological measures to prevent copying prevent legal as well as illegal copying.
Read this to learn more:
http://www.toad.com/gnu/whatswrong.html
Re:WARNING --- FUD ALERT!!!! (Score:2)
Re:Good things, certainly. (Score:5)
The linux-thinkpad users have been trying to get this resolved for some time (more than a year, IIRC), and (AFAIK) still no fix, even for newer systems, let alone older ones.
There are a few rough edges yet to be worked out.
Re:Digital Rights Management vs. Free Software (Score:1)
Err... actually, Handy draws distinctions between DRM technologies and Open Source software. And does so quite convincingly, in my opinion.
Are DRM technologies at odds with the principles of Free Software? Sure, that's an easy argument to make. But it's completely off-topic, because it has nothing to do with what Handy said.
Re:It's a Business Opportunity (Score:1)
Okay, I accept that these labels are only applicable from the public, or the Free software community's perspective. IBM is, of course, consistently self interested. When I say that IBM does things which are unethical, I refer to utilitarian ethics [xrefer.com]; although I'm not actually a utilitarian myself, I don't think there is another ethical framework which has the same legitimacy in discussions of public policy.
Many people defened the "free market" economy because they claim that it has many desirable utilitarian properties. Those people tend to ignore the distorting economic effects of power. When a large corporation actively lobbies [opensecrets.org] for changes in, for example, IP laws, which are clearly contrary to the public interest, it is our responsibility as informed citizens to point that out to them (in the politest possible way, of course ;).
multiple personalitie wrt intellectual "property" (Score:3)
The more inappropriate aspect of this response is that it adopts the language of property rights with respect to copyright and patents - the view that monopolies in information are somehow natural, god given things.
This is a deeply problematic view of copyright and patent law, one which was explicity ruled out in various common law jurisdictions by virtue of Donaldson v. Becket (1774) [cni.org] and the US Constitution. [uci.edu]
A more reasonable and modern approach is to regard IP laws as economic instruments which must balance the public interest in incentives with the public interest in widespread distribution. The Free Software movement (and the more general anti-IP sentiment on the internet) is a result of the fact that technology has shifted this balance - the public interest dictates that copyright and patent laws ought to be weaker, to utilise the distributional possibilities of the net. In this context, IBM's actions can be seen to be more unethical and inconsistent.
Of course, expecting the average copyright lawyer, let alone IBM marketing, to acknowledge this, is rather unrealisitic. :)
BTW, for further reading, see RMS' artcile Re-evaluating copyright: the public must prevail [gnu.org], William Fisher's Theories of Intellectual Property [harvard.edu], or A Philosophy of Intellectual Property by Peter Drahos.
IBM (Score:2)
Unlucky for us, IBM stands to make plenty of money with CPRM, so they will support it.
On the positive side of that, at least CPRM itself is open so at least we will be able to interoperate with it if we want.
What it boils down to is that we need to destroy any demand for CPRM, and that needs to be done by making sure no one buys CPRM "protected" products.
hmmm (Score:3)
IBM's commitment to Linux goes no further - their laptops start at $999, but their Linux laptops start at around $3400. Hmmm, does a Linux license cost $2401, or what?
There must be some reason that no major commodity hardware vendor is willing to ship a low-cost MS free system. After all, it would be MS they are undercutting, not themselves. Hmmmm. Hmmmmmm.
There's an interesting article [nytimes.com] in today's New York Times, indicating that there's a reluctance to sue MS over its abuse of monopoly power, err, because it's a bad idea to offend the monopoly power... Do you think...?
Re:Talk is cheap..... (Score:2)
and painting on sidewalks is just not enough
Re:They don't walk the walk (Score:2)
As long as they are helping us, they can use whatever OS they like, and if they stop help us, they still can use whatever OS they like. I just can't see how it would matter in any way?
Re:Good things, certainly. (Score:2)
Re:you're overreacting (Score:2)
The "secret number" is not the key. Let me explain.
The CPRM cipher algorithm is quite similar to DES. The CPRM "secret number" is analagous to the s-boxes which are used in the DES algorithm. The design of these boxes is really the core of the algorithm. In DES's case, their design is integral to making it good against differential cryptanalysis. If these boxes are not well designed the cipher is more easily broken.
Let me emphasize, the secret number is not the key!!
P.S. I looked on Google for differential cryptananlysis [google.com], but it came back with squat. I read about it in Security in Computing [pearsoned.com], by Charles Pfleeger.
CPRM Open??? (Score:4)
AND, part of the cipher involves a 256 byte "secret number" which can only be obtained if you sign a license agreement. Sounds REALLY open to me.
Re:IBM (Score:5)
No.
If you read the responses carefully, you'll note they take the same basic tack as Dell does on Linux.
That is, and I paraphrase,
IMHO, that is about as strong a statement of support you could expect under the circumstances.
IBM, and everyone else for that matter, would love nothing more than to be out from under the thumb of Microsoft. But, the reality is that IBM sells a heck of lot of hardware that is pre-installed with MS software (just as does Dell and a few other OEMs). IBM's relationship with Microsoft depends on them not angering them beyond a certain point. IBM can go further than any other large company in this regard, since they derive plenty of revenue from other OS's and service contracts.
Dell is much more beholden to Redmond, so you find its support of Linux tempered even further than IBM's. Interviews with Dell executives have them making statements about
You would not see even this degree of courage if it weren't for the anti-trust pressure that is being applied to MS over the last few years.
IBM's support of Linux means a lot to me. I think it really has helped them to slough off the image of being a ponderous dinosaur and tuned into the cutting edge of innovation. Their participation in open source projects is a different and a refreshing approach compared to what I was accustomed to get from them as few as 5 years ago. Back then, the IBM attitude was a lot more like the MS attitude is now: "we're the best, we know better, and when we release "blah" it will be the Better True IBM Way."
The only problem was that, whatever it was that was released, it was needlessly complicated and departed so much from the standard that it required users to surmount needless learning curves (whaddya mean I hafta look fer stuff in /usr/lpp/bin?) Kind of like kerberos and active directory authentication, if you know what I mean.
IBM's tempered response to some of these questions I chalk up to the reality of business conditions more than anything else.
Evasion and Ambiguity (Score:2)
The question specifically addressed image, in the light of Microsoft's PR attacks. Not total investment. That is preaching to the converted. It does not help counteract the deliberate falsehoods which Microsoft is spreading.
And he totally evaded question 6, the crux of which was "Will IBM's contributions to open source projects include these patentable ideas..." Are you saying that given sufficient community interest you would give up the chance to patent something so it can be freely used in open source code?
Re:He's done his homework (Score:2)
That assumes that the maker left the capability for 'unathorized users' (meaning the legal owner) to upload fresh firmware. If they did, the content protection scheme is a joke; merely security through obscurity. If they took content protection seriously, and only allowed cryptographically signed firmware to upload, it's quite possible that the scheme would never be cracked.
In effect, you are hoping that the hardware makers will provide the illusion of content protection, lasting long enough to entice 'content producers' to our platform. That might actually work.
A cooler interview would have been... (Score:5)
Jack Handey Tells What's Up With IBM and Linux
1) Hypocrisy?
by Hobbex
How can IBM reconcile its spoken commitment to Linux and Free software software with its center-stage activity in projects like CPRM on harddisks and SDMI for music?
Handey:
At first I thought, if I were Superman, a perfect secret identity would be "Clark Kent, Dentist," because you could save money on tooth X-rays. But then I thought, if a patient said, "How's my back tooth?" and you just looked at it with your X-ray vision and said, "Oh it's okay," then the patient would probably say, "Aren't you going to take an X-ray, stupid?" and you'd say, "Aw screw you, get outta here," and then he probably wouldn't even pay his bill.
2) IBM + Linux = PPC?
by Xoro
IBM makes PowerPCs. Linux runs on PowerPCs. Does IBM's commitment to Linux imply that they will take the logical step and we will finally see a commodity (non-Apple) PPC motherboard?
This project always seems to generate so much enthusiasm when presented here or in other forums that its continued non-existence is shocking. Particularly since the PPC's superior electrical characteristics have made it all the more intriguing in the current energy climate.
Handey:
One thing kids like is to be tricked. For instance, I was going to take my little nephew to Disneyland, but instead I drove him to an old burned-out warehouse. "Oh, no," I said. "Disneyland burned down." He cried and cried, but I think that deep down, he thought it was a pretty good joke. I started to drive over to the real Disneyland, but it was getting pretty late.
3) Linux vs AIX
by milkmandan9
I work for a fairly small computing firm which relies mainly on AIX but also has a fair number of Linux boxen around.
In the past few months, the question has come up more than once as to whether AIX or Linux is a more appropriate solution to whatever problem my company is current facing...and often times we've installed Linux on commodity hardware instead of buying a fancy RS/6000 machine and buying another copy of AIX.
My question is that as Linux grows in stability and wider corporate-level acceptance, what's IBM going to do about it? IBM has invested a good deal in the AIX system and I'm sure that they generate a fairly hefty revenue stream from it. Do you foresee any of the IBM Linux initiatives losing funding if they encroach on AIX market share?
Handey:
If I lived back in the wild west days, instead of carrying a six-gun in my holster, I'd carry a soldering iron. That way, if some smart-aleck cowboy said something like "Hey, look. He's carrying a soldering iron!" and started laughing, and everybody else started laughing, I could just say, "That's right, it's a soldering iron. The soldering iron of justice." Then everybody would get real quiet and ashamed, because they had made fun of the soldering iron of justice, and I could probably hit them up for a free drink.
4) PR
by truthsearch
Microsoft's strength is largely in its public relations machine. When they talk, the media listens. Craig Mundie's (and therefore Microsoft's) opinion of open source and their own related plans made industry journal headlines. I'd bet many business managers have learned about MS's "shared source" plans. But there's no consistantly loud (or heard) front made against MS statements. Execs hear "open source: bad, shared source: good" from MS, but don't hear other opinions.
Does IBM plan on investing more in the image of Linux and open source? Will there be strong defensive marketing against MS statements? Do you think a closer balance can be made between pro-Microsoft and pro-Linux marketing?
Handey:
He's done his homework (Score:4)
(That and the fact that any protected HDD's will have a hacked up firmware patch available a few months later
He dodged the patent question... (Score:2)
(IBM == Service) != O.S. (Score:5)
---------------
Sig
abbr.
Re:They don't walk the walk (Score:3)
It's nice to say 'Linux this' and 'Linux that' but the fact is that inside IBM, there's virtually NO Linux at all. Sounds like a giant PR move to me.
What a great way to see how many IBMers running Linux there are .. :-) Okay - I'll bite.
Sitting in the DB2 development section, I run Linux as my *gasp* desktop OS. I'm not the only one around here either - I can quickly walk down the corridor and put my hands on 4 more Linux machines being used as development desktop OSs without going more than 20 yards. Then there are people who have laptops running Linux. There are Linux servers, Linux regressions machines and Linux test machines. We have people as primary Linux contacts, a Linux User Group.
And funnily enough, the number of machines running Linux seems to be increasing. Lotus Notes runs fine on my Linux desktop (major kudos to the WINE team for that one) so that solves the most critical need which is not available on Linux native. For some reason once released from the Windows-only world, those Windows partitions get cobwebs pretty quickly.
Cheers,
Toby Haynes
DRMs and Open Source (Score:2)
Absolutely right. For a DRM to work, you need some kind of enforcing entity. This would ususally be a player or viewer application. A player has to enforce the rules set forth by the content owner. To do that, it has to prevent a third party from changing those rules. One way to do this is to implement tamper resistant software which handles the interpretation of the DRM rules. Tamper resistancy and Linux don't really work well together because Linux is an open execution environment where you as the developer have lots of ways to figure out what a program is doing.
It is in a way strange that CPRM with its hardware-based securing of content might actually help here. Because you delegate the security mechanism to hardware and don't have to implement them in (easier to hack) software. From a purely technical point of view, CPRM is good for Open Source because it opens the possibility to develop DRM-aware software. But to have technology that enforces weak laws is a different point alltogether...
Re:Digital Rights Management vs. Free Software (Score:2)
Actually, things are not quite that black and white. People are usually heavily opposed to many things that would prevent them from doing illegal things (usually by also preventing a whole slew of legal things as well).
I don't want to start a flamewar so I'll skip USA-and-guns here, but consider these examples:
My point is; in many cases people have legitimate reason to object systems that are supposed to prevent only (or mostly) illegal activities. Usually it is because legality really can't be decided before the act, but also it's most often much more efficient not to waste energy in trying to completely prevent all abuses beforehand. In USA one example is INS and tax returns; only small percentage of tax returns are thoroughly checked, since it's assumed most people do not try to cheat, and also because chance of catching cheaters still remains high enough to make the idea less tempting (or at least that's what they hope for...). The alternative would be that each tax-payer would have to arrange a time to meet an investigator from INS, and explain every detail about your incomes and deductions. This would likely prevent most cheating, depending on how much resources INS officials had... But it would most likely be very cost inefficient way, not to mention people would object to this tax-gestapo approach.
Good Response the hypocrisy question (Score:4)
The key point: you can open source anything you want, but you shouldn't be able to force other people to open source their creations. There is nothing hypocritical about supporting both Open Source software development and copyright protection.
Re:Digital Rights Management vs. Free Software (Score:2)
And you can't complain that someone is keeping you from doing what you want with the tools you have, if the activity you want to do is illegal. The usual arguments "information wants to be free" or "afther all it's just a buch of 0s and 1s" don't mean anything in the general context.
Anyway I think I'm losing my time to a troll...
IBM Thinkpad and Redhat Linux 6.0 (Score:2)
Re:hmmm (Score:2)
For about a year, IBM shipped all _corporate_ systems in a dual boot OS/2 - PCDOS/Windows 3.1 configuration. The default OS was OS/2. Note that this didn't apply to Aptivas or other home stuff.
The reason they stopped doing this was a MASSIVE outcry from the customer base. Neither the Windows or the OS/2 shops liked this configuration, and IBM dropped it. This was considerably before the backroom deal surrounding the Win95 licence, BTW.
"There must be some reason that no major commodity hardware vendor is willing to ship a low-cost MS free system. After all, it would be MS they are undercutting, not themselves. "
No, they would be undercutting themselves. If you want to open your trap on this topic, you need to understand that the cost of an OS to an OEM is the licence plus support cost. By selling into big dollar business markets only, they can reduce the support exposure and build up their infrastructure. Selling Linux to the Walmart market would be financial suicide.
Re:If you build it, they will come (Score:2)
Smartsuite made little imact true, though it should be pointed out that a significant reason for this was due to the fact that it was the buggiest, most poorly coded piece of crap I've ever had the misfortune of using. Smartsuite on OS/2 was big, bloated, crashed constantly, was lacking features found in the windows version available at the time, and was essentially 1-3 years out of date when it was released. Instead of releasing a superior product for the OS/2 platform, they released a quarter-baked, feature-lacking, constantly-crashing, badly-done-windows-port pile of junk that no sane user would subject themselves to for any length of time. And the user's stayed away in droves.
To make matters worse, it took years before the full office suite was available. For a time, only AmiPro (now WordPro) was the only part of the suite available. And what arrived later on simply wasn't good enough. Smartsuite needed to be at least as good as the windows version, if not better, but it wasn't. Smartsuite's failure on OS/2 probably had more to do with the quality of the software than anything else. Not to say there weren't other factors but getting a crappy word processor is not a good motivator to people to switch operating systems...
If linux is going to get folks to switch desktops, the tools will have to be at least as good if not better than what Windows has. And no, there is no office suite available right now for linux that is as good overall as MSoffice is right now. (Yes, that ticks me off too) Would I pay for a top notch office suite? Yeah, but only if it is better than anything else out there. If it isn't, sorry, not interested. Not that I think it matters since I think office productivity software is going to get commoditized (read free) anyway...
Re: IBM's commitment to User Hostile Technology (Score:2)
If I purchase a license to use data (or audio) then I want to be able to protect my right to use that data. And in the case of audio, *specifically* that data. Not a lower quality facsimile of it.
Granted, I havent seem the CPRM or DRM standards, and I am making a few assumptions about exactly what it will do and how it will affect me, but I honestly cant see any RM solution not stopping me from doing the afore mentioned things.
It seems to me that they are deeming a backup not fair use (and specifically a backup... we're not talking about freeloading pirates here. Co-incidently, my own music archive is purely ripped from my own CDs, stored in Ogg Vorbis format. It has to be, work would have a fit if I pirated music. (and rightly so)).
Either that, or they're throwing fair use out the proverbial window.
Just curious what you think, and how you justify it.
---
It's a Business Opportunity (Score:3)
I find this whole topic a minefield. I've been refining my opinions on it for years and I don't pretend to be clever enough to understand all the issues.
Having said that I gonna dive in... (diving into a minefield - mixed metaphors are fun!Your criticism appears to be that IBM is prepared to promote Linux whilst at the same time not wholly accepting the philosophy which produced it. You feel that because they have put a lot of money into Linux they must automatically adopt a particular view of IP. To do otherwise is "unethical and inconsistent"
But it's only inconsistent if you assume that IBM's motivation in promoting Linux is to promote Free Software. But it's not - it's to take advantage of a business opportunity. IBM are doing what any business does - they've seen an opportunity to make money and they are pursuing it. The 'deal' they've made is to put money and resources into the promotion and development of Linux - in order to reap the reward of increased sales of hardware, services, support and proprietary software.
Ethics are very subjective and IBM seems to have a chequered history but I will say this: Without necessarily adopting the Free Software Philosophy they seem to have behaved responsibly and fairly - giving back to the community and respecting the licensing of Linux.
You'll notice btw that Handy all the way through is very careful to say "Open Source" rather than "Free Software".
Imagine for a second a new non-free OS called Newnix. Imagine that it suddenly becomes popular and begins to pick up serious market share in the server market. But it's new so there's not the availability of compatible hardware, software, services and support. A lot of businesses would seriously consider a major commitment to Newnix if only these things were in place. Serious enough to pay for them. As soon as that happens software, hardware and services businesses will scramble to get involved in Newnix and get a piece of this new pie.
Now do you understand IBM's commitment to Linux? It's not fundamentally different to their commitment to Windows or any other platform.
Finally - and I do realize I've rambled - presumably you object to the fact that they are prepared to use the fruits of others' commitment to Free Software whilst not embracing this themselves. However that's the paradox of Free Software, of some might say, Freedom itself (whatever that is!) - namely that if you are truely committed to it you end up supporting the rights of those who are not.
Re:You mistake "I am able" with "I am allowed" (Score:2)
DRM technologies, once in place as standards won't go away, even if the laws regarding copyright are completely abolished. It will still be technically impossible to make copies because the tools we all purchased are crippled.
Re:Digital Rights Management vs. Free Software (Score:2)
Right. And end-user control will win in the end, because someone will always come up with a hack, legal or not. Perhaps IBM is doing this, knowing full well that it is futile, purely for political reasons (not to piss off the content providers who are also big customers)?
Re:You mistake "I am able" with "I am allowed" (Score:2)
Re:They don't walk the walk (Score:2)
I have a lot of respect for a company that uses its own products instead of a competitors. In the past, this was perfectly normal--only a really badly managed company would use the competition's products when they have their own in-house solution. Somehow things have gotten messed up lately. Witness HP using MS Exchange instead of their own OpenMail (on HP-UX).
Re:You mistake "I am able" with "I am allowed" (Score:2)
Re:They don't walk the walk (Score:2)
And I bet if you look inside Sony, you'd find relatively few PS2s on their desktops. You'd also find few PPC machines on IBM's desktops. So what ? As several of the /. queries pointed out, a significant problem with Linux is its relative inadequacy on the desktop - especially with regards to mail and Office-type applications. So what is IBM to do ? MS applications in the corporate world is a reality and IBM would be retarded to adopt other applications just because a tiny portion of their company is working with Linux. The real indicator of whether they "walk the walk" is looking to see whether or not they are contributing significant resources to Linux (they are), and whether they are releasing code to the community (they are) - not whether or not they decide to stupidly force many of their users to use Linux - as Linux stands now.
Re:If you build it, they will come (Score:5)
Are you serious ? When SmartSuite was ported to OS/2, everybody hoped that it would make a difference to OS/2's fortune. This at a time (circa 1996 if I recall ?) when MS Office's hegemony was not what it is now (WordPerfect and WordPro were still viable options to Word, for instance). SmartSuite did nothing for OS/2 and in fact whimpered away shortly thereafter, seeming to exist now only as a fringe office suite given away with pre-configured computers.
Do you really think that Linux users are going to run and pay money for a copy of SmartSuite and swallow their feelings of entitlement to free software ? Do you really think that MS Office users are going to run and pay money for a copy of Smartsuite just so that they can stick it to MS ? I don't.
Good things, certainly. (Score:4)
Here's to a good partnership!
Re:hmmm (Score:3)
1) Microsoft was a lot better at marketing software than IBM. IBM is fundamentally a stodgy hardware company and is not good at selling software. (There might have been an additional factor. I don't know if this was still true at the point when OS/2 got slaughtered in the marketplace, but in the past, there has evidently been interference with the PC division by the main-frame division. The mainframe guys were afraid of the competition and didn't realize that if it didn't come from their own PC's, it would come from someone else's. And the mainframe guys ran the company.) So the IBM PC hardware division could not sell enough PC's with OS/2 to survive.
2) In Judge Jackson's findings of fact last year, he cited an incident when Microsoft told IBM to back off on their OS/2 marketing, then delayed giving IBM the specs on the next version of Windows, so just before Christmas IBM was almost the only PC maker in the market without the latest version of Windows. IMHO, that would be a reason to buy IBM's, but most consumers weren't knowledgeable enough to avoid first releases. In other words, it looks suspiciously like IBM was punished for selling OS/2 too vigorously by getting their Christmas sales sabotaged. Apparently IBM has learned their lesson -- they are not pushing Linux hard enough to offend the monopoly power.
there's a reluctance to sue MS over its abuse of monopoly power, err, because it's a bad idea to offend the monopoly power...
Yep. I'm wondering if in the long run, MS is going to experience something analogous to what happened to medieval kings that went too far in looking for conspiracies to overthrow them. Eventually the nobles would get together and agree that for everyone's safety, the king _must be_ overthrown. And once it looked like the king was going down, _everyone_ was happy to pile on...
Re:Digital Rights Management vs. Free Software (Score:2)
Cantankerous libertarians on Slashdot can deride Stallman as a crank or a commie until the cows come home, but Handy's answers here clearly underscore the distinction that RMS is continually making between Open Source and Free Software.
IBM does not care one whit about "[providing] the end user complete and total control" over anything (hardware or software). For IBM, Linux and other Open Source software are a simply a technically sufficient product where the development costs are shared by other parties and the market already exists (as opposed to investing heavily in their own proprietary products and bearing all of the development costs plus the costs of creating a market); IBM simply sees Linux/Open Source as a low-cost, high-return development effort which has the favorable side effect of dampening their long standing -- and well deserved -- image as the IP-weilding, proprietary technology bully. Don't believe me? Reread Handy's answer to question 3.
That said, their contributions (if not neccessarily their motives), have been outstanding. I hope very much to see them continue. But let's not kid ourselves about any contradiction between IBM's Open Source work and their IP-protection work. For them, Linux is a product, not a philosophy.
Talk is cheap..... (Score:2)
IMHO money may talk in some situations, but what the Linux community could use now is someone to do some talking literally. Specifically I see a need to have someone who has some power (IBM Perhaps) to speak up. Every day articles or speeches are released with Microsoft ragging on Open Source and the whole Linux Movement. It would be nice to see a major Linux Supporter (IBM Perhaps) step up and defend the community.
While throwing $1 Billion at the cause is nice, it is also for IBM's bottom line. If they are really supporting the movement then they should be willing to stand up and take a stand.
DocWatson
Re:They don't walk the walk (Score:2)