Editorial on IBM Linux

Although nobody has been able to smuggle out a single screenshot of the top-secret IBM Linux desktop OS?often referred to as Blue Linux?I have friends who have seen it. I am assured that it not only exists, but is being used by large numbers of IBMers. "They are going through a process of eating their own dog food right now," I was told. 05 February 2004 In a recent article over at PC
Mag.com John Dvorak said:

Although nobody has been able to smuggle out a single screenshot of the top-secret IBM Linux desktop OS?often referred to as Blue Linux?I have friends who have seen it. I am assured that it not only exists, but is being used by large numbers of IBMers. "They are going through a process of eating their own dog food right now," I was told.

and

IBM has tried everything to get Microsoft off the desktop. It tried OS/2, and was outflanked by Microsoft.

Dvorak also thinks that IBM is making a mistake by waiting 2 years to release their Linux .
Personally, I think his editorial missed a few very important points, and didn't elaborate enough on others.

With OS2, IBM was trying to create a new system from scratch and
trying to create a user base for it at the same time.

Linux has a user base. Not a huge one, but 2% of desktop installs = over Half a Million people in the US.

Linux has been around for over a decade. The core of the OS is robust and mature.

IBM has money.

IBM has clout.

IBM can move in one direction.

IBM has been around for nearly a century.

Points 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7 are very important.

Look at Apple and OS X.

One direction. "Our *nix will look this way and it will work this way. It will have a standard and adhere to that standard. Software written for our flavor of *nix installs this way and will come to the user with all the goodies needed to install and run."

"We have the money to pay thousands of coders to put a standard, easy to use GUI on our *nix and bend over backwards to make things work with a minimum of bother for the user. We do not release half-baked or woefully incomplete apps."

"Though we account for just 2% of sales, our installed user base is large enough that major third party vendors of hardware and software write drivers and programs for our OS."

No other commercial desktop *nix vendor has the money or the clout to do what Apple has done with a *nix. Apple has Billions of dollars to throw at these issues. Lycoris, Xandros, and Lindows have ... a few million at best.
Apple has been around over 25 years and is a trusted name. Lycoris,
Lindows, and Xandros not only have shoestring budgets, but each has been around less than a decade and could easily belly up in a matter of months. Finally, because of its larger capital base, Apple had the time (about five years) to make OS X desktop ready before releasing it. Yes, OS X has undergone several tweak cycles since then to make it faster and better, but 10.1 was desktop ready. (I know. I used it.)

IBM makes PCs and they make Apple's processors.

Like Apple, IBM has the money and the clout to go to ATI and nVidia and Canon and Olympus, and Epson, etc and say, "write some native drivers" (And because IBM's Linux should have one single standardized install
package, companies would fall in line and consumers and businesses have support reassurance. "If it doesn't auto detect, I go to the website, download the newest driver and I'm good to get working.") The average home user, business, or educational facility does not view having to edit config files, or write drivers, or futz around with code as a good, fun, or useful thing. That's exactly what they do not, under any circumstances want to do -- EVER. Down time is not productive, but going down because the computer has been DOS'd, hacked, or infected is one thing, but downtime because the video card doesn't work and there are no drivers to download and make with the doubleclicky is perceived as an entirely different thing by
the casual end user or non IT person. A hack or a virus is something an evil illegitimate child does to you but lack of a proper video driver is perceived as cheap incompetence on the part of a vendor.

As a manufacturer IBM can select the hardware for their machines and make a Linux guaranteed to boot off of and properly detect/configure the hardware in their machines ... and by extension most PCs.

IBM can say the desktop in our Linux will work this way, it will look this way, and our applications are backed by us.

Backtracking just a moment to the issue of clout: "our applications are standard and when you download and double click they just install and work." IBM has enough clout that their packaging scheme would quickly become the defacto standard for Linux. Something that Linux desperately needs.

IBM could also license Codeweavers for their Linux to ensure Windows compatibility, but they also have the clout to go to companies Macromedia or Adobe and say, "write some Linux native software for us to bundle and expand your market."

Likewise, IBM has the $$$ to throw at programmers to brillo-pad the cruft off of Open Office and make it into an application every bit as rich, polished, powerful, and full featured as MS Office. (I've used both Sun Office and Open Office on my PC. The UI needs work. Period.) This would help them score some serious points with the *nix community.

With an IBM Linux, users could run the same OS on desktop and server.

Of course, it would interesting what deals IBM negotiates with Apple to make sure that they don't kill Apple. Because if they ported their Linux to PPC, and their Linux was as good, stable, and polished as OS X ... eeep.
Like Microsoft and Apple, IBM has the money for 24-7/365 tech support.
If IBM took the time to make a powerful, easy to use Linux distro, this would mean big changes in the Linux world and a jump in installed user base, but part of the reason Linux hasn't made a bigger impact is because there's about 20 under funded distros and millions of coders each doing his/her own thing -- when they feel like it in their own time. IBM has the money/clout/resources to provide a one stop standardized shop to businesses and schools, and the average user tired of Microsoft prices and licensing schemes.

This, of course, would not stop other distros or the millions of codewarriors, and I think it would enrich the whole Linux community as a whole, because people who got an IBM Linux desktop and wanted to dig in deeper could then jump off to another flavor or join the pool of "code warriors".

Yes, a lot of what IBM does will be proprietary and they are not obliged to share it, but since, like Apple, they will be building on top of a lot of GPL'd code, they will have to give that back to everybody. Apple has made some real, genuine improvements to Khtml, to give one example, and Darwin is there for anybody who wants to grab it and go.

This is all speculation, of course, and dependent upon IBM's willingness to lay out the cash NOW for benefits later.

"Our OS for your desktop is going work on your computer, play well with all your gadgets, run all your existing 3rd party programs, not get infected by viruses and hijacked by hackers, it's going to kick the snot out of Windows -- and it's only $75 to stick it on up to 5 computers, $200 for the business/education unlimited use version."

Rushing a "dog's breakfast" of a Linux to market will consign IBM to the current pool of small time Linux players and will only guarantee Microsoft's continuing dominance. IBM has the ability to give Windows a good kick in the nads, but only if they take the time and money to properly line up the shot.

Comments

Add New