Comments (7)
  • Add a Comment
  • Edit
  • More Actions v
  • Quarantine this Entry

1 localhost commented Permalink

While I agree with all the comments, the reality is that IBM was able to embrace open source because at the time they were predominantly a mainframe (legacy) provider. They could leverage open source to get into a market they didn't dominate. Microsoft on the other hand is the 800-lb gorilla in the space that we're talking about, so it is not realistic to expect that they will scrap they're base and embrace open source.<div>&nbsp;</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> I'm not a supporter of Microsoft, but I don't really see any practical, pragmatic advice given in this article that will help the audience see what they could do, given their current market dominance. If you're really trying to help the industry, throw out some creative but realistic options. Otherwise you are also just spreading FUD.

2 localhost commented Permalink

Let me ask you, what desktop your using, what desktop the editor of this website is using. You do not need to write 1000 of lines to fight with Microsoft, Just prove that IBM software is better than Microsoft people will move. Today’s world there is no other software that is easy to use and customer like than Microsoft, as long as Microsoft come up software, that customer likes, they are the winner. I started using Linux with some of the IBM products on one of the IBM hardware, take 3 to 4 months, that can be done in a week on windows with the same IBM products .The IBM developer test and develop their stuff on windows and ask the world to use Linux. I will greatly appreciate, if the entire IBM start using Linux based products and ask others to do.<div>&nbsp;</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> Thanks<div>&nbsp;</div> Kesava

3 localhost commented Permalink

If Microsoft are so worried about Linux - I wonder what they'll think about ReactOS (http://reactos.com).

4 localhost commented Permalink

"While I agree with all the comments, the reality is that IBM was able to embrace open source..."<div>&nbsp;</div> <b><div>&nbsp;</div> You are confusing</b> open source with <b>open standards</b> or what Gerstner referred to as "<b>industry standards</b>." MS may not want to change but it may be only a matter of time before government and large industry require all software they purchase to meet open/industry standards. This would not prevent MS to compete against open source companies with their closed source software as long as the software meet the open standard.

5 localhost commented Permalink

Not to labeled as a troll, because I use Linux and nearly all opensource products on my personal system. But, after just browsing the laptops I can get from IBM, they all say they come with Windows XP and I don't see amy option for "No OS" or a linux distro.<div>&nbsp;</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> Your line "Perhaps it'll take some sort of near-death experience for this seemingly invincible company to recognize the need to reform, to embrace open industry standards and stop acting as if Microsoft offers the only viable choice" seems a little hypocritical in light of what I can actually build an IBM system with.

6 localhost commented Permalink

OK, all I'm saying is that people and corporations are motivated for two basic reasons: Either they're moving away from something painful, or they're moving toward something pleasurable (profitable, etc.). IBM was moving away from the pain when it embraced open standards, open source. So far, the industry (with the help of the DOJ) are trying to get Microsoft to move away from the pain - but it's not working. So the other option is to show them the advantages of moving to open standards/open sources, whatever. So far, I haven't seen anyone provide a compelling reason why they would embrace anything but their current entrenched proprietary stance. Noone is saying "Look Microsoft, if you embrace these things, here's why go will make so many more billions than you already make."

7 localhost commented Permalink

Has Steve Ballmer thought his comments through?? If IBM was only interested in service revenue, they would only push Microsoft products. They could make billions of services dollars just keeping hot fixes up to date. Instead IBM is more interested in keeping it's customers nimbal and profitable, so they keep buying IBM solutions year after year. At the same time Microsoft customers are looking for any possible way to move to other platforms.