| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
IBM to invest $100 million in Linux push | |
|
||
| Time: 14:59 EST/19:59 GMT | News Source: CNET | Posted By: Chris Hedlund | ||
|
IBM on Thursday unveiled a plan to spend $100 million over the next three years to build support for Linux into desktop applications for its Workplace software. The company said the money will go toward support programs designed for independent software vendors, programs for channels and partners, research and development, sales and marketing, and various technology and integration centers. IBM's Workplace software is built around its Java-based WebSphere Portal software, which delivers applications and documents from servers to PCs or handheld devices running Windows or Linux. The software can present information in a Web browser that has full graphical capabilities and can be used offline. IBM said the decision stemmed from the increasing popularity of Linux among its customers. According to the company, the number of customers opting for the Linux platform for applications such as WebSphere Portal, instant messaging and Web-based document sharing saw high double-digit growth in 2004. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 307 Last | Next |
The time now is
2:32:14 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 9589 (68.17.52.2) at 2/17/2005 5:14:41 PM |
|
So let's recap shall we? IBM's revenues are about 100 billion dollars. Their "input" to further development of *nix applications is 100 million dollars. That's a whopping .001 of revenues! Nevertheless, to all you *nix fan boys still living in your parent's basement, that is a fabulous sum! lol
By the way, it is doubtful that at about $2800 for the license, 1 year of maintenance and 20 user licenses that WepSphere Portal saw, "high double-digit growth in 2004." If IBM isn't selling woof tickets on this one, a whole bunch of people got ripped off. |
| #2 By 7754 (65.27.85.198) at 2/17/2005 9:04:54 PM |
| #4, what's sad is that some of the very things the GPL/Linux crowd hate about Microsoft, they've invited into their own movement via the big trojan horse that is IBM. IBM cares nothing about Linux or the GPL, except to the extent that they can co-opt it and use it indirectly to improve their bottom line through hardware premiums and their services division. If they're truly a fan of getting rid of patents in the spirit of progress, let's see them give up their hardware patents. |
| #3 By 7754 (65.27.85.198) at 2/17/2005 11:31:08 PM |
|
If they're truly a fan of getting rid of patents then they are f*cking communists.
I was being sarcastic... I should have used quotes, sorry. You don't see them doing that, because they are smarter than that. They are preying on the ignorance/naiveté. Halcyon, yes, fine if they benefit from OSS. But the GPL crowd should realize that IBM is in it for IBM, and nothing more. They do not care about their philosophies, except to the extent that it will benefit IBM, either directly or indirectly. This really demonstrates little about the GPL/Linux itself, other than that it can be exploited without regard to the core beliefs upon which it was founded. |
| #4 By 7754 (65.27.85.198) at 2/18/2005 2:26:13 AM |
|
I still don't see how anyone could have a problem with getting attention and having big business validate your program.
But that's the problem--IBM doesn't validate the GPL/Linux 'program,' because one cares about a philosophy towards software development, and the other cares nothing about that philosophy. If IBM is bringing attention to GPL software, it's in spite of the nature of the GPL, not because of it... and yes, that hurts the GPL movement, because it says that vendors don't really buy into the idea, but they'll use it if it means free/cheap developer labor and free/cheap marketing, which the IT media seems all too ready to give them by mere association with Linux. |
| #5 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 2/18/2005 11:43:38 AM |
|
I feel like Jack Nicholson... "You're not following me, chief...." :)
Halcyon... it's like this. The GPL/Linux wing of the OSS crowd (which is what we're really talking about here) is like a good-looking girl that wants people to like her for "who she is on the inside." IBM is a player and a two-face that tells the girl anything she wants to hear (giving up some software patents, promising indemnification, etc.). He doesn't care a whit about "who she is on the inside." He's just using her, but she thinks he truly likes her for who she is. It's fine if they use the gratis output of that crowd, but there shouldn't be any misconceptions about what the commercial sector wants out of GPL/Linux. They buy into it because it's free labor and is potentially a way to improve their bottom line. IBM is using them, and many view that as a victory... I just don't see it that way. It's like the girl who shows off her jerk boyfriend as a trophy--not a very bright girl, usually. |
| #6 By 7754 (65.27.85.198) at 2/19/2005 11:22:43 AM |
|
they choose to release their code under a license where such things are possible because they wanted others to have certain freedoms with the software and code.
(Again, hold on--we are not discussing OSS broadly, but GPL specifically.) But that's not all the developers want--the whole idea behind the GPL is that, if you're going to use it, you are also buying into the whole concept that you will release your own code freely subsequently, not just merely use it for your own benefit. There is a freedom with the GPL, yes, but it comes with an obligation (unlike that of the BSD license, for example). I don't think many vendors are truly interested in that, and it shows by their actions. |
| #7 By 7754 (65.27.85.198) at 2/19/2005 6:40:09 PM |
|
The goal of the GPL is just to produce good software that is usable, modifyable, and extendable by anyone.... The GPL only covers and benefits the software that is under the GPL, it doesn't have to extend to other software.
But if you are going to modify it, then it DOES extend to your software: "2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions: ... b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License. ... Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or collective works based on the Program." There is the obligation, along with the obligations that accompany distributing and copying the software. |
| #8 By 7754 (65.27.85.198) at 2/20/2005 2:54:04 PM |
|
Actually, you are extending an already existing work, you are not creating your own work.
So who's doing the typing? Elves? You must write your own program if you want to use a different license. And you must make sure not to include any GPL code in it, because if you do, you have a very clear obligation, as discussed. The point is that there is an obligation when using GPL code--you must either draw a complete sandbox around your own code to make sure it is free from and not derived from any GPL code, or you must agree that your own code will also be freely viewable, freely distributed, freely modifiable, etc. |
| #9 By 7754 (65.27.85.198) at 2/21/2005 12:58:05 PM |
|
If your objective involves keeping the code a secret, it makes no sense to distribute it under the GPL. You must understand that contributing to an OSS project and designing a proprietary project are two very different things.
Not if you're modifying or using GPL code in your own proprietary software. Yes, but that does not involve licensing your own software under the GPL, as you had misinterpreted. No, no misinterpretation. I think it's pretty clear--if you're modifying GPL code or including GPL code in your own code (a derivative work), then you are agreeing to be bound by the GPL for your own code as well. As I said in the last post quite clearly--you must put a sandbox around your own code, completely free of GPL code (and I think it's clear that I'm not talking about running it on a GPL platform or linking libraries or anything else outside your own code), in order to be free of the obligations introduced by the GPL. But we're getting into a slightly different argument. The whole point is that, if IBM truly believes in the goal and intent of the GPL movement, they will release their software under it as well. This goes back to the whole patent discussion. There is an expectation in much of the OSS community (the GPL folks) that vendors will realize that the GPL is a better model for software development... and that companies like IBM will release their own software under the GPL as well. But the truth is that most vendors aren't really interested in the GPL model because of its obligations. Their actions thus far have shown this, which means that they really don't believe in the GPL model after all. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 307 Last | Next |
The time now is
2:32:14 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
