IBM to ship machines with Ubuntu...

[Dr. C]

IBM and Canonical Launch Linux- and Cloud-based Desktop Software in the U.S. (http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS195115+20-Oct-2009+PRN20091020)

This is very interesting to coincide with the release of Windows 7. IBM and Microsoft go back a long way. IBM was the multinational that was out negotiated by very young Bill Gates.

[Frak]

Well Canonical has done such a great job surpassing Windows with Ubuntu, and IBM has such great success with OS/2, I'm sure the two of them working together will have absolutely brilliant results.

[markbuntu]

IBM and MS have had a very contentious relationship over the decades. Not least of which was MS getting involved in OS/2 and then killing its devlopment.

IBM has always been a big supporter of unix/linux for its hardware and has great experience with the thin client model where applications run on the server.

[texpat]

...rather than with W7.

http://blog.internetnews.com/skerner/2009/10/ibm-and-ubuntu-roll-linux-for.html

This should give Linux a push :)

[jeyaganesh]

From that news;

IBM and Canonical are now announcing the launch of Linux and cloud-based desktop software in the U.S.

IBM and Canonical in their press release have stated that the cost of migrating to Windows 7 will be as much as $2,000 for most PC users, with hardware accounting for much of the expense. Linux (and specifically Ubuntu) together with the IBM software is according to the two partners, cheaper to deploy.

[K.Mandla]

Interesting. I can't seem to find any link that actually shows the machines though. :(

[handy]

Sad to see Ubuntu promoting the Cloud I think... :(

[newbie2]

http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/28649.wss
8-)

[samjh]

Sad to see Ubuntu promoting the Cloud I think... :(

It's the future, particularly for enterprise computing. If Canonical doesn't try to establish some kind of market lead in the area, they'll fall behind their competitors.

Remember that while Ubuntu is a nice contribution to the FOSS community by Mark Shuttleworth, it is also the cornerstone of his business.

[mivo]

IBM and Canonical in their press release have stated that the cost of migrating to Windows 7 will be as much as $2,000 for most PC users, with hardware accounting for much of the expense.

This is nonsense and FUD, though, and I wish Canonical didn't go there. Windows 7 is hardware-friendlier than Vista, so it will run just fine on most Vista and many XP machines, and getting a new computer that runs W7 well is in the "few 100s" range. For $2000, that allegedly "most users" have to spend to upgrade, not even to buy a new computer, you can get a very high end gaming PC.

Sorry, I don't mean to defend Windows 7 here, and I didn't exactly have fun spending €125 for a copy of the pro version, but I used to have more respect for Canonical a few years back. Only because MS spreads FUD doesn't mean that now Canonical and sore loser IBM (don't think they ever got over OS/2) have to do the same.

[hoppipolla]

good stuff! Sounds wicked to me, I think this is a trend we may see increase more, particularly as Ubuntu becomes a more viable option and it's quality is improving truly in leaps and bounds.

Man this would be a wonderful thing to see ^_^

I think the launch of Lucid next year as hopefully a very impressive LTS release and the continued fast development of KDE 4 will also have impacts :)

[hoppipolla]

This is nonsense and FUD, though, and I wish Canonical didn't go there. Windows 7 is hardware-friendlier than Vista, so it will run just fine on most Vista and many XP machines, and getting a new computer that runs W7 well is in the "few 100s" range. For $2000, that allegedly "most users" have to spend to upgrade, not even to buy a new computer, you can get a very high end gaming PC.

Sorry, I don't mean to defend Windows 7 here, and I didn't exactly have fun spending €125 for a copy of the pro version, but I used to have more respect for Canonical a few years back. Only because MS spreads FUD doesn't mean that now Canonical and sore loser IBM (don't think they ever got over OS/2) have to do the same.

I think they mean for businesses though not home owners.

[t0p]

It's the future, particularly for enterprise computing.

True. But no less sad for all that. In my opinion, the move towards "the cloud" is a mistake. Processor, memory and storage hardware is getting better and cheaper all the time. I really don't see the need for this move to cloud computing. But the industry isn't going to reevaluate its strategy based on my opinion. And the people whose opinion would be respected are all busy complimenting the naked emperor on his new outfit.

[magneze]

This is nonsense and FUD, though, and I wish Canonical didn't go there. Windows 7 is hardware-friendlier than Vista, so it will run just fine on most Vista and many XP machines, and getting a new computer that runs W7 well is in the "few 100s" range. For $2000, that allegedly "most users" have to spend to upgrade, not even to buy a new computer, you can get a very high end gaming PC.

Sorry, I don't mean to defend Windows 7 here, and I didn't exactly have fun spending €125 for a copy of the pro version, but I used to have more respect for Canonical a few years back. Only because MS spreads FUD doesn't mean that now Canonical and sore loser IBM (don't think they ever got over OS/2) have to do the same.All this might be true for the home user but not for the average enterprise with 100's or 1000's of desktops. That's where the cost savings come in. OS upgrades are a nightmare when you look at that scale, especially if you rely on the way MS does it.

[t0p]

sore loser IBM (don't think they ever got over OS/2)

Oh come on! That's some nonsense right there! How many decision makers at IBM do you think had anything to do with OS/2? 5? 2? 0?

If IBM want to contribute to movement away from Microsoft it's because that's the way they see the industry going and they want to be at the forefront. Not because of some grudge against Bill Gates who isn't even at Microsoft anymore.

[mivo]

Training and such I understand, though I would argue that it is harder (more costly) to train someone from XP to W7 than from XP to Linux. I skipped Vista professionally, so can't comment on it. The reference was also to "mostly hardware expenses", and I don't really see that even for enterprises. License fees, yes, no doubt a big meaty piece of costs right theree (still not "up to $2000 for most users"), but hardware, and "most users"?

That is like me saying my desktop's switch to Ubuntu cost me $1000 because it took me some twenty hours of researching, tweaking, bug-reporting to get my (back then) Abit board to work properly with Ubuntu, assuming a moderate $50/hour fee.

[Paqman]

True. But no less sad for all that. In my opinion, the move towards "the cloud" is a mistake. Processor, memory and storage hardware is getting better and cheaper all the time. I really don't see the need for this move to cloud computing.

Cloud computing and virtualisation (eg:EC2) allow enterprise-scale operations to be a lot more flexible. They aren't tied to individual hardware platforms. In essence you have a pool of virtual computing power spread across the network(s) that you can use in a more fluid way.

[madhi19]

Well I think I heard recently that Microsoft made anti-trust complaint against IBM. The old saying might still be true. "Whatever you do don't **** off IBM!!"


Training and such I understand, though I would argue that it is harder (more costly) to train someone from XP to W7 than from XP to Linux. I skipped Vista professionally, so can't comment on it. The reference was also to "mostly hardware expenses", and I don't really see that even for enterprises. License fees, yes, no doubt a big meaty piece of costs right theree (still not "up to $2000 for most users"), but hardware, and "most users"?

That is like me saying my desktop's switch to Ubuntu cost me $1000 because it took me some twenty hours of researching, tweaking, bug-reporting to get my (back then) Abit board to work properly with Ubuntu, assuming a moderate $50/hour fee.

Good point Gnome is very XPissh and with a bit of customization you can really make Gnome look almost just like XP! I say for an lite office worker who does not do any IT the transition from XP to Gnome Ubuntu is like two hours max.

[sudoer541]

OMG! Canonical and IBM are offering their services (http://www.linux.com/news/featured-blogs/168-brian-proffitt/150566-ibm-canonical-switch-up-their-smart-work-game) to US and Africa.
Thats good marketing!=D> I think Americans will like this since they are still struggling with the economy. It would be great if the offered their services worldwide. But we shall see.

[Dragonbite]

True. But no less sad for all that. In my opinion, the move towards "the cloud" is a mistake. Processor, memory and storage hardware is getting better and cheaper all the time. I really don't see the need for this move to cloud computing. But the industry isn't going to reevaluate its strategy based on my opinion. And the people whose opinion would be respected are all busy complimenting the naked emperor on his new outfit.

On the other hand, "the cloud" is an in-road into Enterprises where Red Hat, Novell and Solaris have a stronger standing at this point (and obviously Microsoft), plus by running things on "the cloud" it removes that pest-of-Linux; compatibility. Browsers are more or less equal so compatibility becomes a moot point.

Linux isn't able to corner the Netbook market with Windows 7 coming out so they are smart to dive into whatever "niche" market they can build up as a source of strength so as to weather the other markets.

Look at how well Apple has been able to weather the industry starting with its strength in the graphics market. They re-invented themselves somewhat by expanding the graphics to multimedia and an inclusive solution with iPod and iTunes.

[markbuntu]

Microsoft has had a long term goal of moving to software as a service for over a decade now. They realize that forcing people to lay out a lot of cash on a regular basis for upgrades is reaching a limit.

So, with software as a service residing in the cloud they can charge someone every time they do anything. You will need to pay a subscription fee to access your own data. For MS this is the goal, collect money every time someone turns on their machine.

[j.bell730]

Microsoft has had a long term goal of moving to software as a service for over a decade now. They realize that forcing people to lay out a lot of cash on a regular basis for upgrades is reaching a limit.

So, with software as a service residing in the cloud they can charge someone every time they do anything. You will need to pay a subscription fee to access your own data. For MS this is the goal, collect money every time someone turns on their machine.

Well, good luck to them. Google will surely be doing the same, and most likely for free.

[earthpigg]

hi,

i'd just like to pop in and point out the source of this article:


SOURCE IBM

Colleen Haikes, IBM Media Relations, +1-415-545-4003, chaikes@us.ibm.com; or
Mike Azzi, IBM Media Relations, +1-914-766-1561, azzi@us.ibm.com

i didn't know it was possible to submit a Corporate Press Release (biased by default) directly to Reuters as if it where an unbiased piece of true journalism.

not that i know a damn thing about journalism.

off to wikipedia for me.

[handy]

Microsoft has had a long term goal of moving to software as a service for over a decade now. They realize that forcing people to lay out a lot of cash on a regular basis for upgrades is reaching a limit.

So, with software as a service residing in the cloud they can charge someone every time they do anything. You will need to pay a subscription fee to access your own data. For MS this is the goal, collect money every time someone turns on their machine.

Potential future problems that I see, & Cloud certainly plays its part. Is that as internet technology continues to develop, we'll see the world average bandwidth continually rising. This will allow more & more services to become subscription based & I fear that there will (as the internet becomes more corporatised) become less & less room for freedom of expression. The situation with the internet could become one where it costs more & there are more limitations, due to the profit at any cost corporate paradigm.

The goal of big corporations such as the carriers in the U.S., is to erode the laws that prevent them from being just carriers (which they are apparently doing).

Computerised houses, white goods, & on it goes, is a potential (if the world can stay wealthy enough to afford it?) gold mine for those that want to own the internet. This of course continues to motivate those that have any chance, of trying to control as much of the internet a possible to meet their own ends, be they simple bottom line profit, or political/social control.