«

"Patrick Bold" <> wrote in message
news:3f58223a$...
>
> "IBM, perhaps better known for its hardware and software, has been a
> leader in landing large-scale IT services contracts. Last year, it
> garnered the highest number of IT infrastructure outsourcing deals worth
> $1 billion or more, according to research company Gartner."
>
> You're right, it's clearly in the interest of IBM to support open-source
> software alternatives to Microsoft. But only to the extent that there is
> a lucrative IBM service contract involved. Lots of little Linux wannabes
> are betting on IBM's strategy to pay off for them as well in the form
> of new business -- and that's fine. But masking one's ambitions in this
> regard as some kind of anti-monopoly crusade is pathetic -- at the very
> least you need a less conspicuous monopolist for a partner than IBM.
>
>

How does this make IBM any different to any other bigcorp.
They are all welcome to use free software.
And how does this make IBM a monopolist in the context of free software ?

IBM will pay for good people to work on the kernel and journalling file
systems which is beneficial to me as a debian user, even though IBM use Suse
and Redhat.
Its definitely not a monopoply position.

And if IBM helps the wider recognition and credibility of Linux, thats good
for other people who service Linux users too.

Hehe... you b'stard... I have a cross between Kermit and Big Bird
doing a co-operation scene, and that bloody mp3 of them stoned... lmao

Of course, someone is now bound to seek out my reasons for this humor,
and the relevance to IBM/Linux/Co-Operation

....sigh...

On Sat, 6 Sep 2003 10:33:28 +1200, "T.N.O" <> wrote:

>"Olson Johnson" wrote
>> Done anything on your own ?
>
>yes I have.
>
>> How else did anyone make any software ?
>
>Dont know, dont care... I was just laughing at how it reminded me of seasame
>st...
>

"Olson Johnson" <> wrote in message
newsUf6b.4830$...
>
> "Patrick Bold" <> wrote in message
> news:3f58223a$...
> >
> > "IBM, perhaps better known for its hardware and software, has been a
> > leader in landing large-scale IT services contracts. Last year, it
> > garnered the highest number of IT infrastructure outsourcing deals
worth
> > $1 billion or more, according to research company Gartner."
> >
> > You're right, it's clearly in the interest of IBM to support
open-source
> > software alternatives to Microsoft. But only to the extent that
there is
> > a lucrative IBM service contract involved. Lots of little Linux
wannabes
> > are betting on IBM's strategy to pay off for them as well in the
form
> > of new business -- and that's fine. But masking one's ambitions in
this
> > regard as some kind of anti-monopoly crusade is pathetic -- at the
very
> > least you need a less conspicuous monopolist for a partner than IBM.
> >
> >
>
> How does this make IBM any different to any other bigcorp.
> They are all welcome to use free software.
> And how does this make IBM a monopolist in the context of free
software ?

Any company that is awarded an exclusive contract to service the
critical software applications that a business depends on has gained a
significant degree of monopolistic power in the bargain. Indeed, if you
read the history of IBM, you will discover that this is precisely the
economic fact that turned IBM from a contender into a giant in the first
place. Whether the software is proprietary in origin (as much of IBM's
software has been), licensed (like Windows) or free (like Linux), the
principle is the same -- knowledge about the BUSINESS being serviced is
much more valuable than knowledge about coding. Sure, anyone can look at
the pieces of OSS code that get written and stash them in their own
libraries if they wish -- but any developer who has ever actually rolled
out a substantial software project for a substantial business knows that
good code is just a small part of the puzzle that has to be solved.
Businesses know this when they negotiate a service contract -- next to
the bank, the software maintenance team you hire is likely to end up
knowing more about your business than most of your own managers, and so
the incentive is to pay a non-competitive, monopolistic premium to some
outfit you hope will get the job done for a long time to come.
>
> IBM will pay for good people to work on the kernel and journalling
file
> systems which is beneficial to me as a debian user, even though IBM
use Suse
> and Redhat.

Granted, there are some collateral benefits here for all OS users. No
doubt about it....

> Its definitely not a monopoply position.

.....but no, you're wrong about that. The exact term economists use to
describe the phenomenon is "monopolistic competition". Ideally, this
entails free entry into the software servicing market on the supply side
(expected globally to be worth $16.5 billion by 2005, according to
IDC) -- no Microsoft domination here, so any developer theoretically
stands an equal chance of getting their product adopted. But significant
enough differentiation of end products -- through quality of service,
reputation, or some other form of branding -- that end users are
sufficiently committed to one service provider or another to pay a
non-competitive, monopolistic premium.

>
> And if IBM helps the wider recognition and credibility of Linux, thats
good
> for other people who service Linux users too.
>

That appears to be the conviction of many small Linux developers. But
then you could also make a credible case that just the opposite is
true -- that IBM is in fact encouraging small developers to take on as
large a share of the risk of developing Linux into a credible product
as possible, with the expectation that many will fail and that the best
can simply be bought out at some point down the road (some small
developers would undoubtedly welcome this eventually as well, but that's
a different story). IBM's monopoly power here is unquestionable -- its
cash assets alone dwarf all competitors combined except for Microsoft --
and so it can afford to invest heavily in R&D that will place its
products at the cutting edge, to extract great economies of scale, and
to outbid competitors for the most lucrative business.

T.N.O wrote:

> "Olson Johnson" wrote
>
>>They still get free software, and anyone can support it
>>Co operation pays off, and it doesn't matter who co operates.
>
>
> rotflmao
>
> Sorry, this just so reminded of Sesame St from when I was a kid...
>
> co-operation... heh

I bet Linus's parents had him watching Sesame St. Great program, IMO.

Gib

steve wrote:

> T.N.O allegedly said:
>
>
>>"Olson Johnson" wrote
>>
>>>They still get free software, and anyone can support it
>>>Co operation pays off, and it doesn't matter who co operates.
>>
>>rotflmao
>>
>>Sorry, this just so reminded of Sesame St from when I was a kid...
>>
>>co-operation... heh
>
>
> You need to re-learn it, I guess.

Hey Steve, sometimes a pipe is just a pipe. You're reading far too much
into TNO's comment. That "cooperation makes it happen" mantra is stuck
in my brain too, and it makes me laugh too. You got a problem with
that, c*nt!? (for the humour-impaired: ))))))))

Gib

Gib

On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 20:30:38 -0400, Patrick Bold wrote:

> True, but then we're talking about IBM's marketing scheme, aren't we?

Yes we are.

> Lighten up. I mean, seriously, do you actually think IBM believes that
> crap?!

Yes they do. IBM has found out that it is far more profitable to be a
medium/large sized fish in a very big pond than the only one in a very
small one.

On Sat, 06 Sep 2003 13:11:55 +1200, Evil Bastard wrote:

> The huge difference between IBM and M$ (apart from the fact that IBM is
> way higher on the F500) is that IBM is fully tooled up to ship iron,
> while M$ just sells software, which makes M$ products forever the tenant
> on someone else's hardware.

IBM make more money from their support contracts than from their hardware.

MS is still stuck on being a games company/software house, while IBM sells
solutions and service (including full blown setups where they supply
_everything_ down to the helpdesk staff)

> Since IBM can pull its margins from hardware, it is well served by
> hawking FOSS - they still make their money. Microsoft on the other hand
> is mortally threatened by FOSS.

I believe that IBM's POV on this is that their development costs are lower
for FOSS than for keeping developing 4-6 different proprietary *nixes and
by standardising everything, the market opens out even wider.

MS only suppported Alpha hardware because HP paid 100% of the costs for
making it happen. HP found out the hard way that MS will keep opening up
the bottomless pit for money and pulled out of it before it was a total
loss.

MS software runs on a limited set of computer hardware. There's far more
out there than x86 (other than CE, I know it runs on ARM and others) and
noone is willing to pay MSes price to port to anything else. MS sealed
_that_ fate by attempting to bleed HP dry on the alpha NT ports.

--
There are 2 sorts of email opt-in lists:
1: Those which can demonstrate the provenance of every subscription request.
2: Fraud

Gib Bogle allegedly said:

> steve wrote:
>
>> T.N.O allegedly said:
>>
>>
>>>"Olson Johnson" wrote
>>>
>>>>They still get free software, and anyone can support it
>>>>Co operation pays off, and it doesn't matter who co operates.
>>>
>>>rotflmao
>>>
>>>Sorry, this just so reminded of Sesame St from when I was a kid...
>>>
>>>co-operation... heh
>>
>>
>> You need to re-learn it, I guess.
>
> Hey Steve, sometimes a pipe is just a pipe. You're reading far too much
> into TNO's comment. That "cooperation makes it happen" mantra is stuck
> in my brain too, and it makes me laugh too. You got a problem with
> that, c*nt!? (for the humour-impaired: ))))))))
>
> Gib

OK...sorry.