IBM makes Billions on Linux

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by thing2, Mar 15, 2006.

  1. thing2

    thing2 Guest

    thing2, Mar 15, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 10:07:12 +1300, thing2 wrote:

    > http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/0/9C85E113E60B16B4CC25712D0010E126?OpenDocument
    >
    > IBM, the biggest services provider on the globe........
    >
    > Linux, a lovely little earner for IBM........growing at 35%....


    Good news!

    Both IBM and RedHat easily demonstrate that there is plenty of money to be
    made out of supporting Linux.


    Have A Nice Cup of Tea

    --
    1/ Migration to Linux only costs money once. Higher Windows TCO is forever.
    2/ "Shared source" is a poison pill. Open Source is freedom.
    3/ Only the Windows boxes get the worms.
    Have A Nice Cup of Tea, Mar 15, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. thing2

    impossible Guest

    "thing2" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/0/9C85E113E60B16B4CC25712D0010E126?OpenDocument
    >
    > IBM, the biggest services provider on the globe........
    >
    > Linux, a lovely little earner for IBM........growing at 35%....
    >


    Was this ever in doubt?

    It's always amusing to me to find that the very people who are so
    scornful of Microsoft's monopoly are such champions of IBM's. New
    business model, same old story. Companies that used to be beholden to
    Microsoft for its software licenses are now beholden to IBM for their
    support and development services. So much for the revolutionary age of
    OSS!
    impossible, Mar 16, 2006
    #3
  4. thing2

    MarkH Guest

    "impossible" <> wrote in
    news::

    > "thing2" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/0/9C85E113E60B16B4CC25712D0010E126
    >> ?OpenDocument
    >>
    >> IBM, the biggest services provider on the globe........
    >>
    >> Linux, a lovely little earner for IBM........growing at 35%....
    >>

    >
    > Was this ever in doubt?
    >
    > It's always amusing to me to find that the very people who are so
    > scornful of Microsoft's monopoly are such champions of IBM's. New
    > business model, same old story. Companies that used to be beholden to
    > Microsoft for its software licenses are now beholden to IBM for their
    > support and development services. So much for the revolutionary age of
    > OSS!


    Are you on crack?

    Who in the world is "beholden" to IBM?

    Anyone that runs Linux can sort out their support however they like. If
    they choose to pay IBM for their services then how is that unfair? In what
    way does IBM have any kind of monopoly? Is there anything stopping any
    company from hiring their own Linux guru for in-house support?

    Are you saying that OSS is only good as long as no one anywhere makes any
    money supporting it?



    --
    Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
    See my pics at www.gigatech.co.nz (last updated 5-September-05)
    "The person on the other side was a young woman. Very obviously a
    young woman. There was no possible way she could have been mistaken
    for a young man in any language, especially Braille."
    Maskerade
    MarkH, Mar 16, 2006
    #4
  5. On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 12:07:55 -0500, impossible wrote:

    > It's always amusing to me to find that the very people who are so
    > scornful of Microsoft's monopoly are such champions of IBM's. New
    > business model, same old story. Companies that used to be beholden to
    > Microsoft for its software licenses are now beholden to IBM for their
    > support and development services.


    But that just the thing.

    People can take their Linux systems and the code and go to any service
    provider for support.

    The only reason to stay with any given service provider is because they
    offer a good service at a reasonable price. If they're too expensive, or
    if the quality of service is poor, then simply take your business elseware.

    No monopoly there.

    IBM is simply one of the big corporations that got on board early and in
    a big way with Linux support, and is obviously doing reasonably well out
    of it.

    Perhaps IBM is doing something right. I mean, "Who Says Elephants Can't
    Dance"?


    Have A Nice Cup of Tea

    --
    1/ Migration to Linux only costs money once. Higher Windows TCO is forever.
    2/ "Shared source" is a poison pill. Open Source is freedom.
    3/ Only the Windows boxes get the worms.
    Have A Nice Cup of Tea, Mar 16, 2006
    #5
  6. thing2

    impossible Guest

    "MarkH" <> wrote in message
    news:UkjSf.19953$...
    > "impossible" <> wrote in
    > news::
    >
    >> "thing2" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/0/9C85E113E60B16B4CC25712D0010E126
    >>> ?OpenDocument
    >>>
    >>> IBM, the biggest services provider on the globe........
    >>>
    >>> Linux, a lovely little earner for IBM........growing at 35%....
    >>>

    >>
    >> Was this ever in doubt?
    >>
    >> It's always amusing to me to find that the very people who are so
    >> scornful of Microsoft's monopoly are such champions of IBM's. New
    >> business model, same old story. Companies that used to be beholden
    >> to
    >> Microsoft for its software licenses are now beholden to IBM for
    >> their
    >> support and development services. So much for the revolutionary age
    >> of
    >> OSS!

    >
    > Are you on crack?
    >
    > Who in the world is "beholden" to IBM?


    Anyone who contracts with them to develop and maintain their software.
    No different than buying someone's software license. Either way -- for
    the term of the service contract or the license -- you're locked in.

    But keep in mind also that if you've contracted with IBM, you've
    probably also bought their hardware and may even some of their
    proprietary software -- it's how they package things. Surely you
    don't think a company gets to be as big as IBM by making it easy for
    their clients to opt out?

    >
    > Anyone that runs Linux can sort out their support however they like.
    > If
    > they choose to pay IBM for their services then how is that unfair?


    If you sign a service contract with IBM -- or anyone else -- you must
    certainly cannot sort out your support however you like. Only within
    the terms of the contract. Nothing unfair about that, just as there's
    nothing unfair about adhering to the terms of a software license.
    Either way, it's your choice.

    > In what way does IBM have any kind of monopoly?


    Name me one other software company big enough to handle the kind of
    projects that IBM does? It's the Haliburton of OSS development -- if
    there's no one to bid against you, then you have a monopoly of that
    market by default.

    > Is there anything stopping any company from hiring their own Linux
    > guru for in-house support?


    Technically, of course not. But you're thinking small-time -- which is
    not how IBM thinks. IBM isn't competing for business with companies
    whose options are to hire either one person from IBM or one person
    in-house. People call IBM because they need 50-100 developers and the
    infrastructure to support them. That's a different sort of business
    decision altogether.

    >
    > Are you saying that OSS is only good as long as no one anywhere
    > makes any
    > money supporting it?
    >


    Never said that. I'm just curious why people who recommend OSS as a
    form of "liberation" get so excited about one giant company gobbling
    up all the big contracts. It's not the metric of success I would use.
    impossible, Mar 17, 2006
    #6
  7. On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 19:45:24 -0500, impossible wrote:

    > Anyone who contracts with them to develop and maintain their software.
    > No different than buying someone's software license. Either way -- for
    > the term of the service contract or the license -- you're locked in.


    In case you hadn't noticed, but you cannot charge for software licenced
    under the GNU GPL. You can only charge for the reasonable cost of
    distributing it.

    Also, if you've negotiated a service contract that you cannot get out of
    by means of a termination clause, then more fool you!


    Have A Nice Cup of Tea

    --
    1/ Migration to Linux only costs money once. Higher Windows TCO is forever.
    2/ "Shared source" is a poison pill. Open Source is freedom.
    3/ Only the Windows boxes get the worms.
    Have A Nice Cup of Tea, Mar 17, 2006
    #7
  8. On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 19:45:24 -0500, impossible wrote:

    > Name me one other software company big enough to handle the kind of
    > projects that IBM does? It's the Haliburton of OSS development -- if
    > there's no one to bid against you, then you have a monopoly of that
    > market by default.



    Hmmm... there is at least one software house right here in Wellington
    that is always delighted to be hired to write GPL'd software. In fact it
    prefers to release software under the GPL.

    Of course the licence is often specified by the party that hires them to
    write the software.

    The company I have in mind is presently experiencing massive growth.


    Have A Nice Cup of Tea

    --
    1/ Migration to Linux only costs money once. Higher Windows TCO is forever.
    2/ "Shared source" is a poison pill. Open Source is freedom.
    3/ Only the Windows boxes get the worms.
    Have A Nice Cup of Tea, Mar 17, 2006
    #8
  9. thing2

    RJ Guest

    RJ, Mar 17, 2006
    #9
  10. thing2

    RJ Guest

    In article <>, says...
    > On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 10:07:12 +1300, thing2 wrote:
    >
    > > http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/0/9C85E113E60B16B4CC25712D0010E126?OpenDocument
    > >
    > > IBM, the biggest services provider on the globe........
    > >
    > > Linux, a lovely little earner for IBM........growing at 35%....

    >
    > Good news!
    >
    > Both IBM and RedHat easily demonstrate that there is plenty of money to be
    > made out of supporting Linux.


    never mind Redhat,

    Ibm will be big al right and when they are, that'll be the end of Linux,
    it'll be hello proprietary OS again and they'll be another Microsoft

    >
    >
    > Have A Nice Cup of Tea
    >
    >
    RJ, Mar 17, 2006
    #10
  11. thing2

    RJ Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    > "thing2" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/0/9C85E113E60B16B4CC25712D0010E126?OpenDocument
    > >
    > > IBM, the biggest services provider on the globe........
    > >
    > > Linux, a lovely little earner for IBM........growing at 35%....
    > >

    >
    > Was this ever in doubt?
    >
    > It's always amusing to me to find that the very people who are so
    > scornful of Microsoft's monopoly are such champions of IBM's. New
    > business model, same old story. Companies that used to be beholden to
    > Microsoft for its software licenses are now beholden to IBM for their
    > support and development services. So much for the revolutionary age of
    > OSS!


    For IBM Its a means to an end
    Apple did their own proprietry OS on top of BSD
    IBM will do theirs on top of Linux or whatever one day as soon as they
    have control of enough of the market.
    They are making billions on their proprietry HARDWARE first and
    foremost.
    RJ, Mar 17, 2006
    #11
  12. thing2

    RJ Guest

    In article <>, says...
    > On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 19:45:24 -0500, impossible wrote:
    >
    > > Anyone who contracts with them to develop and maintain their software.
    > > No different than buying someone's software license. Either way -- for
    > > the term of the service contract or the license -- you're locked in.

    >
    > In case you hadn't noticed, but you cannot charge for software licenced
    > under the GNU GPL. You can only charge for the reasonable cost of
    > distributing it.


    Crapola, there is no restriction in the GPL whatrsoever.
    RJ, Mar 17, 2006
    #12
  13. thing2

    RJ Guest

    In article <>, says...
    > On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 19:45:24 -0500, impossible wrote:
    >
    > > Name me one other software company big enough to handle the kind of
    > > projects that IBM does? It's the Haliburton of OSS development -- if
    > > there's no one to bid against you, then you have a monopoly of that
    > > market by default.

    >
    >
    > Hmmm... there is at least one software house right here in Wellington
    > that is always delighted to be hired to write GPL'd software. In fact it
    > prefers to release software under the GPL.
    >
    > Of course the licence is often specified by the party that hires them to
    > write the software.
    >
    > The company I have in mind is presently experiencing massive growth.


    And making less than massive income no doubt
    RJ, Mar 17, 2006
    #13
  14. thing2

    RJ Guest

    In article <>, says...
    > On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 12:07:55 -0500, impossible wrote:
    >
    > > It's always amusing to me to find that the very people who are so
    > > scornful of Microsoft's monopoly are such champions of IBM's. New
    > > business model, same old story. Companies that used to be beholden to
    > > Microsoft for its software licenses are now beholden to IBM for their
    > > support and development services.

    >
    > But that just the thing.
    >
    > People can take their Linux systems and the code and go to any service
    > provider for support.
    >
    > The only reason to stay with any given service provider is because they
    > offer a good service at a reasonable price. If they're too expensive, or
    > if the quality of service is poor, then simply take your business elseware.


    Yeah right how many companies do their own releases on IBMs hardware.

    >
    > No monopoly there.


    IBM controls all their proprietry hardware

    > IBM is simply one of the big corporations that got on board early and in
    > a big way with Linux support, and is obviously doing reasonably well out
    > of it.
    >
    > Perhaps IBM is doing something right. I mean, "Who Says Elephants Can't
    > Dance"?


    Who is the beneficiary? Well Its IBM, whatta surprise
    After all who cares if IBM dominates the market like MS does.
    RJ, Mar 17, 2006
    #14
  15. thing2

    Mercury Guest

    > For IBM Its a means to an end

    Yip, thousands of people working away for nothing and IBM benefiting. So
    many OSS people are blind to this: unpaid IBM employees that they are.
    Mercury, Mar 18, 2006
    #15
  16. thing2

    Mercury Guest

    > The open source zealot baboons will all be laffing outa the other side
    > of their mouths when IBM pulls an Apple and releases their own
    > proprietary Linux one day


    Now why should they? Why should IBM put itself back in the position of
    having to employee thousands to maintain an OS when there are all these
    people working for IBM for nothing?

    Zealot Baboons seems a rather appropriate description.
    Mercury, Mar 18, 2006
    #16
  17. thing2

    s.t.e.v.e. Guest

    RJ wrote:

    > In article <>, says...
    >> On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 10:07:12 +1300, thing2 wrote:
    >>
    >> >

    http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/0/9C85E113E60B16B4CC25712D0010E126?OpenDocument
    >> >
    >> > IBM, the biggest services provider on the globe........
    >> >
    >> > Linux, a lovely little earner for IBM........growing at 35%....

    >>
    >> Good news!
    >>
    >> Both IBM and RedHat easily demonstrate that there is plenty of money to
    >> be made out of supporting Linux.

    >
    > never mind Redhat,
    >
    > Ibm will be big al right and when they are, that'll be the end of Linux,
    > it'll be hello proprietary OS again and they'll be another Microsoft


    First there can be no "again" as Linux has never been proprietary.

    Second, Linux is covered by the GPL, so IBM can't "own" it.

    Nor can anyone else.

    I'm frankly amazed that after all these years someone in nz.comp like
    yourself could still be almost totally ignorant of such matters.
    s.t.e.v.e., Mar 18, 2006
    #17
  18. thing2

    impossible Guest

    "s.t.e.v.e." <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > RJ wrote:
    >
    >> Ibm will be big al right and when they are, that'll be the end of
    >> Linux,
    >> it'll be hello proprietary OS again and they'll be another
    >> Microsoft

    >
    > First there can be no "again" as Linux has never been proprietary.


    >
    > Second, Linux is covered by the GPL, so IBM can't "own" it.
    >
    > Nor can anyone else.


    The Linux kernel is protected by the GPL. As are any modules "derived"
    from the Linux kernel. But drivers and applications are not considered
    derived works, and so these can be made completely proprietary. If
    that weren't the case, neither IBM nor any any other for-profit
    developer would have the slighest interest. The source code for
    software that simply *runs on* Linux and calls its kernel functions
    does not have to be shared with anyone other than the author/owner.

    >
    > I'm frankly amazed that after all these years someone in nz.comp
    > like
    > yourself could still be almost totally ignorant of such matters.


    I don't think you're ignorant of this fact. But I do think you tend to
    obscure its significance. The software market for the Linux OS is
    unlikely to develop much differently from the software market for the
    Windows OS. It will be a predominantly closed-source, proprietary
    market dominated by a few big players.
    impossible, Mar 18, 2006
    #18
  19. On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 13:35:46 -0500, impossible wrote:

    > The Linux kernel is protected by the GPL. As are any modules "derived"
    > from the Linux kernel. But drivers and applications are not considered
    > derived works, and so these can be made completely proprietary.


    Not so if they too have been released under the GPL.

    The vast majority of software on the Linux platform is Free, licenced
    under the GPL, or under similar Open Source licences.

    It is impossible for any software derived from Free GPL'd software to
    become enslaved closed source software.


    Have A Nice Cup of Tea

    --
    1/ Migration to Linux only costs money once. Higher Windows TCO is forever.
    2/ "Shared source" is a poison pill. Open Source is freedom.
    3/ Only the Windows boxes get the worms.
    Have A Nice Cup of Tea, Mar 18, 2006
    #19
  20. On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 13:35:46 -0500, impossible wrote:

    > The software market for the Linux OS is
    > unlikely to develop much differently from the software market for the
    > Windows OS. It will be a predominantly closed-source, proprietary
    > market dominated by a few big players.


    Meanwhile, GNU/Linux and all the infrastructure that forms the whole
    system is and always will be Free GPL'd software.

    Of course the licences that the various software houses wish to use when
    writing their own software that is not in any way derived from GPL'd
    software, is and always will be entirely up to them - as they own the
    copyright to their own software and can specify how it is to be used.

    But don't you think it's interesting that more and more software houses
    are releasing software under GPL compatible licences?


    Have A Nice Cup of Tea

    --
    1/ Migration to Linux only costs money once. Higher Windows TCO is forever.
    2/ "Shared source" is a poison pill. Open Source is freedom.
    3/ Only the Windows boxes get the worms.
    Have A Nice Cup of Tea, Mar 18, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Mutlley
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    360
    Mutlley
    Apr 5, 2009
  2. Me
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    343
    Your Name
    Apr 7, 2009
  3. Peter
    Replies:
    49
    Views:
    1,159
    victor
    Jun 20, 2009
  4. Mike
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,527
  5. Mike
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,532
Loading...

Share This Page