Unisys throws weight behind 'mature' Linux

Open source is now "a mature technology" and the right cost-effective option for many companies, said Peter Blackmore, president of worldwide sales at Unisys.

Blackmore, a former Hewlett-Packard executive who masterminded the company's Adaptive Enterprise strategy, outlined Unisys' strategy for growth at a meeting in London on Wednesday. He said the enterprise services company is now focused on four core areas: Enterprise security, real-time infrastructures, open source and the Microsoft market.

Unisys, based in Blue Bell, Pa., is now working with some major companies to deliver open-source solutions, Blackmore added.

Related story
Lawyer: Open-source risks overblown

Patent and copyright conditions reduce the risk, Free Software Foundation counsel says.

"Linux is really in demand now," he said. "We are working with one client, a major European travel business, where we are pitching open-source in a large server environment. We can prove the reliability and the maturity, and it will save them 30 percent off the bottom line."

Blackmore also said that outsourcing--much of it desktop outsourcing--is now 50 percent of Unisys's business. The combination of Microsoft Windows on the desktop and open-source software on the server can be the most successful strategy for the company, he said in an interview.

Blackmore believes that the main problem for Unisys has been to find ways to successfully market itself. One issue is that the company does not have great visibility outside its core markets. "Customers say, 'We wish you were better known,' and we have to address that," he said.

Blackmore has come full circle in his career after starting with Burroughs Machines, which then merged with Sperry-Univac to become Unisys. Blackmore moved on to Compaq and then joined HP in the merger of those two companies, before returning to Unisys.

Colin Barker of ZDNet UK reported from London.

[parich1776]

Dirty Little Secret

Not restricted to Linux, but applicable to open source in general, is the fact that adopting *any* source code into an organization or product carries with it the requirement to maintain the code - or pay someone else to do so even though the code is "free." The dirty little secret is that, whereas software purchase and maintenance contract costs are visible and generally subjected to an ongoing review and approval process, actual costs associated with the adoption of open source are often hidden and do not appear in the financials. The obscurity lends itself to inaccurate reporting and general lack of accountability. Some companies recognize the downside and accept it. Some do not, or would rather not know. But it's well past time for open source advocates to drop the prose.

[Mister C]

The alternative view.

With proprietary software, your system goes bonkers and there is no patch available, you wait. Or worse, you argue with the vendor (who will remain nameless) about the cause. Even if you have the talent and know how to fix it you can't. If you are lucky you get a fix in a few weeks.

With open source you can do as you wish and as long as you do not sell it. The repair code is yours alone. If you have the talent, you make the fix and all is right with the world. At least this is my understanding of the position taken by SBC, the USN and numerous entities that have made the change.

Oh ya, did I mention those $25,000+ per year service contracts, they are even more necessary with the proprietary software then with open source.

Lastly, having worked with IBM tech support and the other nameless company, IBM wins, no contest.