IBM offers a 'Microsoft-free' desktop

IBM wants corporate customers to cut the cord with Microsoft.

The tech pioneer is launching a Linux-based collection of virtual-desktop applications that run on a server without the need for desktop hardware--or Microsoft software, according to a report on Wednesday evening by The Wall Street Journal. The Linux-based software package, which is available now, runs on a back-office server and is accessible to customers on thin clients, the paper reported.

The Virtual Linux Desktop ranges in price from $59 to $289 per user, depending on level of software and service desired, according to the report. IBM estimates that the software package could save corporate customers up to $800 per user, when compared with the cost of maintaining Microsoft's Vista operating system, Office suite, and collaboration tools, the newspaper said.

IBM is counting on the prevalent economic pressures to help make its "Microsoft-free" suite more appealing.

"Deploying your technology this way is going to save you something more than 50 percent of your total costs," Jeff Smith, IBM's vice president for open source and Linux, told the Journal. "As customers face an increasingly challenging economic situation, they're looking at everything they're spending money on."

Cost aside, however, corporate customers may not be ready to embrace an environment where their data is stored centrally instead of locally.

[benjwah]

Is IBM still bitter?

[mssoot]

Of course they are. They could of owned what would have been microsoft but they gave it away.

[andreoobyg]

http://sites.google.com/site/eqtransit/etica visita este espacio !!!!

[t8]

Even though there is this weird Microsoft mentality thing, I think that Vista and a bad economy just may move dumb consumers to other solutions.

[Lerianis]

I don't think Vista and a 'bad economy' (that seems to be only hitting certain people!) will make people switch. The fact is that Vista is a very good operating system, on par with or exceeding XP, and most people will not want to switch because their 'favorite apps' only work on Windows systems and OS's.

[andreoobyg]

????? ?cono MIA es ?cono SUYA
http://sites.google.com/site/eqtransit/etica visita este espacio !!!!

[mindseyetechaz]

what about integrated htpc are whats needed for home and web media corporations still dont understand a waste of tech time and money

[humanssssss]

When people are poor, they tend to steal more. It's not like when people are poor, they stop spending more. That is how human nature. That's why during an economic downturn, smart countries increase their security and military in the event of a public riot or protest.

I don't see IBM getting much customers from this. Corporations would rather fudge numbers in their accounting books then to go with a cheaper solution.

[Lerianis]

Frankly, in the time of an economic downturn, the people have a right to riot and protest. The fact is that most of this can be blamed on the Repukians, who are STILL harping on the 'no regulation' ******** when they KNOW that is part of what has caused these economic troubles.
They also STILL won't believe that gas prices were being fixed by speculators during the 150$ barrel of oil times.

[Renegade Knight]

They will gain customers. The Cloud is the same thing. Microsoft has a "Non IBM" solution offering much the same service.

If you can replace a PC with a "Internet Device' or Dumb Terminal you save money. Not as much as going wiht open source though...

[steve merball]

"Cost aside, however, corporate customers may not be ready to embrace an environment where their data is stored centrally instead of locally."

why not? their money is in a bank somewhere. why not data?

[solitare_pax]

Some corporations still do save everything centrally rather than locally - How else is one supposed to handle inventory and ordering if you don't have a master list of everything on hand?

A few are probably still using the software for the old mainframes that did it that way - because they're too cheap to upgrade even in a 'good' economy.

[therealgeeves]

15years ago it was all server client - wasn't it? Nothing new from IBM, old model new kernel :)

[Commander_Spock]

Re: "why not? their money is in a bank somewhere. why not data?" But, the same banks said no to the IBM recommended move to Linux before and they may very well say no (and remain the way they are presently) a second time around.

Re: "IBM, Bankers at Odds Over OS/2 Migration Path
Vendor advises OS/2 users to switch to Linux, but ATM makers are leading push to Windows"

Also,

"August 11, 2003 (Computerworld) -- IBM, which will end support of its aging OS/2 operating system after 2006, is recommending that OS/2 customers migrate to Linux instead of Windows.

But there's little likelihood that IBM's advice will be widely heeded. The last bastion of OS/2 computing, branch banking, is locked into a Windows migration strategy because the major manufacturers of automated teller machines are going the OS/2-to-Windows route.

Wells Fargo & Co. began its migration from OS/2 to Windows three years ago, said Jonathan Velline, senior vice president of ATM banking at the San Francisco-based bank. That move was prompted by the expectation that IBM would drop OS/2 support, as well as by the need to upgrade data encryption methods , support electronic check-image processing and provide audio services for visually impaired users, Velline said. "

http://www.computerworld.com/softwaretopics/os/story/0,10801,83884,00.html

Code-Base OS/2 will always be (remain) Code-Base OS/2. (Cool).

[bruceslog]

Might be a good idea... would companies no longer be responsible for data leaks and breaches since their data is not in their hands anymore ?
Just the savings on no longer being the only one constantly trying to keep all that data secure would be a benefit.

[Commander_Spock]

Re: .....["As customers face an increasingly challenging economic situation, they're looking at everything they're spending money on."...] Now we are talking "economics"; so, come on Armonk, come on Redmond fix this; and, as a point of reference here is an extract from a 1998 Lotus Development Corporation communication;

Re: "Concerning the issues with 1-2-3 that are talked about in the documentation you gave me, most of the issues are related to converting files between older and newer versions of product and converting documents between Lotus and Microsoft. Anytime a file is saved backwards or saved with an older file format than the format the file was created under, such as saving a 1-2-3 , 97 file for Windows 95 into a WK1 format for DOS, then naturally we are expected to loose certain features due to technology and features that are present now that were not present 8 - 10 years ago. Similarly, if we try to convert a file from Lotus into Excel or Excel into Lotus, due to differences in the products not every feature will be converted perfectly with the file filters that are available. Both Lotus and Microsoft create similar spreadsheet programs; however, there are several differences in both programs and these differences will remain to distinguish the products apart. We do try to design conversion filters that will allow as much of the file formats as possible to be exchanged and converted without disrupting the actual file design and format.

In one of your letters you made mention of the @IRR and @ERR functions in the 1-2-3 product. By design the @IRR (notably "absent" in Open Office) will calculate the Internal Rate of Return; where the @ERR is used in conjunction with other formulas, posted was an "ERR" showing an error was received in the calculations. As far as I can see in the program I cannot find an @ERR function that will allow us to calculate an Economic Rate of Return"

When this is gotten right we can all begin to "Party Like It Is Rocking New Year's Eve 1998"!

[bbneo2]

That's what I'm talking about!
IBM isn't bitter... they are better.
They know that the business software environment is about function, not empty promises.

[Remo_Williams]

The MSWin-free desktop is fine, but there is still no Linux replacement for Outlook that connects natively to an Exchange server. Evolution can't do this without a server proxy hack, which is not really what you want to require for freeing the masses from the tyranny of connectivity via MS software.

-R

Your problem is that you are using a Virus Exchange server. A few years ago I moved from GroupWise to Kerio on Linux. All of my users with PDA's, phones using active sync work, even those that insist on using MSs LookOut client have a connector to use that does everything as if it were a Virus Exchange server except that the server doesn't crash for a whole day, cost 10x's as much, it runs faster than any MS server every could, etc.

[Renegade Knight]

Annoying as Outlook is it remains a great tool and you have a great point. Nobody else has a replacment.

I've been porting Outlook to OS X. What A PITA. Revers would likely be easier.

[medezark]

What's the performance/feature set compared to locally installed software? I have yet to see any of these "cloud" applications that could match the feature set AND performance of locally installed applications.

Why are we going back to dumb terminals and main frame time-sharing?

[UITD]

You couldnt pay me enough to run Linux OR any of IBM's current offerings. Java is crap and they tend to enjoy their Java. If IBM were SMART, they'd band together with Microsoft to crush Google but they're both still very bitter toward each other. Time and again, when we allow our emotions to control our lives we lose.

[Penguinisto]

I can see that no one commenting at this time (including the author!?) has ever heard of Citrix, or (apparently) thin clients (their main app-server products require Microsoft products - big time). That's IBM's main competition here.

@Remo: $89 gets you Novell's OpenExchange, which can translate between existing Exchange servers and native Linux clients very nicely, or just replace Exchange outright.

As for OpenOffice and its alleged unsuitability, what makes everyone so sure that IBM hasn't modified it to need and taste?

Me, I'll wait and see what IBM has on offer (You don't want to know what it costs to do Citrix for a largish install base... this could get interesting).

[aaasolanki]

I was just reading through all the comments, when I read the word 'Citrix'. Oh Boy! Do I hate it or what!

In our organization we use Citrix to connect to Lotus Notes. We would love to have Lotus Notes on our desktop but Citrix helps save some licensing costs I guess.
The Citrix response is so slow that a 100 KB email takes 30 seconds to open. You might say its a 'bandwidth' issue, but we are already using a gigabit network! Then again, you enter one two commands too many or click in the wrong places with your mouse and Citrix starts coming up with its annoying beeps and errors (Invalid menu handle, The Red box of death). That requires us to suspend our work for around 1/2 hr till the connection is reset.

Then you have the mainframe. No fancy eye-candy. Just the back background & green foreground screen in Courier New format.(unlike the bandwidth hungry real-time desktop in Citrix). Just one press of the 'Enter' key ('Ctrl' key for the 3270 loyalists :-)) and even though the Big Blue box is thousand miles away, the system responds in the blink of an eye.

As IBM says it, Mainframe - The World's Fastest Dinosaur.

[Seaspray0]

This is not a new idea. Thin clients using a terminal server has been around for YEARS. The clients didn't even need an OS to start with. It was downloaded over a network via bootp.

[PT78]

This seems like a good idea, but how different is it really than a typical thin client solution? You still lose PC fidelity, and while you gain management efficiencies, you're hardware costs are almost greater due to back-end. Why not simply move storage off the PC client? This would preserve PC fidelity while also delivering the management efficiences.... without the expensive back-end (low cost SAN).

[zvonr]

If you want to go thin client, and frankly a lot of corporations should do that, the sun ray solution will not lock you into any OS, you can run windows, linux and solaris ...

http://www.sun.com/desktop/sun_ray_clients.jsp

at 4w/client and you can save a lot of power too...

[FutureGuy]

@bbneo2 IBM is better not bitter????
IBM might make great hardware, but when it comes to software (baring a very few exceptions) its offerings are the worst in the market.

[R_NIKORA]

This concept and value proposition is not new. Citrix and Wyse Technology offered all of the same benefits in 1997 with their Citrix MetaFrame and Wyse Thin-Client solutions. However, as compared to the proposed IBM solution the customer base did not have to switch off their Microsoft Office products or any other application that ran in a Terminal Server environment. This concept was adopted by major transaction oriented customers such as FedEx and Wal*Mart. Today this same solution is available from Microsoft as Terminal Services and there are several manufacturers of thin client devices. Also, Sun Microsystems offers a Linux based solution that uses a mature Open Office suite.

If the world economic situation is going to finally move enterprises off PCs and onto more secure and cost effective desktop solutions, the lions share of the market may move to these more mature and proven vendors. Of course there will always be those enterprises that bleed IBM Blue.

Former VP Worldwide Sales for Wyse Technology 1997 - 2001.

[ozidigga]

People like to cry about Microsoft alot, it's just an OS get over it. It's good to have choices and it's good that there is a company provides that choice - there are other OS's out there go and use them if it gives you any satisfaction. The existance of the Microsoft OS is good for the market, the consumer & competition. Microsoft did with the OS what Ford did with the automobile - they didn't invent it, but they made it available to the masses. Linux is a fine platform but isn't ideal for the average user who really doesn't care about their OS, they just want things to work.

[gggg sssss]

MS free? But then they want you to buy a load of Lotus notes, Write, presentations, db2, websphere, etc. Twice the cost of MS, half the performance.

And where is our OS/2 freind? Now THAT is an MS free environment, and see how well that worked for them.

[idfubar]

Wow - not a single comment analyzing how this solution differs from IBM's Open Client (which, I should add, is an awesome Linux desktop for end-users and developers, not to mention IBMers)...

[robvme]

Microsoft offers an IBM free backend...this is supposed to be news? Everyone knows that IBM has had a Linux lab and that Linux would never have survived without being proped up by the likes of IBM, who by the way, is scared to death of the GPL and makes sure that all development of those products are completely separated from other IBM software. The real question is, how much of IBM services will enterprise customers have to by to get these products to interoperate as well as Microsoft Stack? Nothing is free, not Linux, not IBM, and not Microsoft....ever have a free puppy? Not really free.

[IBMblows]

robyme is right. IBM might "give" this away, but in true, typically fashion, they will rip their customers off and provide ***** support, if any at all. They will continue to promise the moon and deliver you to ashes. Anyone who has ever dealt with them knows this. If only people would stop buying into their stupid commercials & do their homework, we could finally be rid of this dinosaur. The only reason they are even still around is because corporate execs don't have the balls to admit to their stockholders that they made a serious mistake by signing contacts with them in the first place. IBM continuously causes nothing but problems.... and nickels and dimes their customers for everything. Microsoft products might not be free, but they always work and if its broken, they won't charge you to fix it.