IBM Linux-OpenOffice Desktop offering - history repeating

Summary: My colleague, Paula Rooney, recently posted IBM launches first Linux-OpenOffice desktop with virtualization features that pointed out that IBM is having a go at pushing Microsoft's Windows off of corporate desktops once again. Although the technology is different this time around, the concept is the same.

My colleague, Paula Rooney, recently posted IBM launches first Linux-OpenOffice desktop with virtualization features that pointed out that IBM is having a go at pushing Microsoft's Windows off of corporate desktops once again. Although the technology is different this time around, the concept is the same. "What are you talking about?" I can hear some of you saying. Do you remember OS/2? How about the OS/2-based product "Workplace on Demand?"

What's IBM doing?

This time, IBM is building it's desktop operating system based upon Linux, OpenOffice and KVM, one of the two virtual machine technologies that are part of the Linux kernel. This, IBM hopes, will provide a stable, secure and easy-to-use operating system that could replace Microsoft products in its customer's offices. OpenOffice can handle the job of replacing a good deal of Microsoft's personal productivity software while Linux handles the job of replacing Windows XP.

Having used that combination on one of my desktop systems for the last several years, I have to agree that it is certainly a viable alternative that will meet the requirements of many organizations.

Why replace XP?

Well, it's pretty clear that many organizations have decided not to go to Visita and are sticking with Windows XP for the time being. Although Windows XP has its limits, it's good enough to get by.

Most organizations, after all, are in the business of offering products and services that will appeal to their customers not purchasing and upgrading operating systems. If an operating system either won't do what these organizations want or merely is perceived as not doing what they want, they'll continue to use their current software rather than go through an expensive and time-consuming upgrade process.

Another point is that the IT executives remember upgrading to Windows ME and don't want to go there again.

Why is IBM doing this?

The folks at IBM have a long memory. They remember working with Microsoft on a replacement for Windows 3.1 that came to market under the name OS/2. They remember Microsoft telling everyone that OS/2 was strategic and then going out and developing Windows NT rather than continuing the partnership.

At the time, OS/2 was better than Windows 3.X in many important ways. It was more stable, more reliable and a better platform for complex business applications. Microsoft's marketing beat IBM's on every front and OS/2 didn't succeed as IBM had invisioned. Part of the reason for this failure was Microsoft never ported Office or many other of its mainstream tools to OS/2.

To help OS/2 remain viable as Microsoft's personal productivity software became THE standard, IBM invested millions in adding a Windows compatibility mode to OS/2 that allowed the operating system to be "a better Windows than Windows" (in IBM's marketing messages at the time).

Workplace on Demand

Later, they used OS/2 to build what could be considered a very early implementation of desktop virtualization and desktop cloud computing. IBM called this "Workplace on Demand." Nearly all of the things that today's desktop cloud computing suppliers are touting and new features were there in this early product. A user authenticated him/herself by logging onto the network and whatever operating system and application software they used would be streamed down the network to the device they were then using.  It was and still is a powerful concept. In spite of the technical excellence of this product, it, too, died an ignominious death at the hands of Microsoft's marketing machine and Windows NT.

What's new this time?

In the view of many, Microsoft has handled two industry inflections badly making them more vulnerable than before - the transition from Windows XP to Windows Vista and the transition from physical desktop environments to virtual desktop environments.

I won't go into great depth about what problems Visita is perceived to have. My colleages here at ZDnet have done a wonderful job of discussing them. Many organizations have decided to hang onto Windows XP until they can find a better desktop platform.

Microsoft's business terms and conditions have been seen as an impediment for organizations to overcome when they embark on the journey to a more virtualized environment. As Micrsoft fleshes out Hyper-V, it is beginning to understand why its customers were complaining. Now, Microsoft is s l o w l y working to adjust its T's and C's to allow organizations to do the things they wanted to do in the first place.

Any time a supplier is seen as an impediment, rightly or wrongly, it can mean that organizations will show them the egress at the first convenient opportunity.

Snapshot Analysis

IBM is hoping that this is the right time to take back some of its former glory. They remember when Lotus 1-2-3 was the biggest thing in spreadsheets and the IBM PC was the envy of every office staff member. They want those times to return.

We'll have to see if this will work.

Topics: IBM, Hardware, Microsoft, Operating Systems, Software, Windows

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

17 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • OS/2 was the best OS...

    ever written at the time. It would still compete with anything MS has ever written. It was fast and you couldn't crash it. Even if you tried.

    You mention XP has its limitations. What are they?

    If anybody is planning on encroaching on MS' monopoly on the desktop, now would be the time. However, Linux isn't going to do it. There are too many distro's and they all do things a little different. There is not enough support behind any one distro to make business feel warm and fuzzy about Linux's adoption. If all distro's were consistent and interchangeable, Linux would stand more of a chance. Even when you start looking for applications you find most are only ported for specific distro's and making them work on unsupported distro's is too much of a chore.

    Linux is its own worst enemy. And as long as all the various distro's remain separated by their own foolish pride, Linux will remain a niche OS at best.
    bjbrock
    • Well, we have gotton used to a lot of different kinds of cars.

      Why not for computers too? In this case, they would all have the same motor, transmission, and suspension (Linux), so fixing things under the hood would be easy for local support people. You also get good application compatibility. Though, 2 or 3 desktops would probably win out and be the mainstream choices.
      DonnieBoy
      • Kind of different beasts though

        We have got used to lots of different types of cars - but one of the key differences, as far as the analogy is concerened, is that the overwhelming majority of car buyers expect not to have to buy anything else for their car for it to do what they want it to do. The opposite is the expectation for an OS - most people expect and many want to customise theirs with different games, productivity suites, movie players, mp3 players etc etc.

        Now that's maybe in part because it's so easy to add applications, whereas it's not so easy to modify your car; and of course you look less tragic modding your desktop than if you'd added a go-faster stripe and a whale-fin to your wheels.
        mail@...
    • XP MainLimitations

      The main problem with XP is that you cannot write software for it. You cannot write a binary. You cannot access the disk or video bios. (Yes, I know, VS .Net has a "build" button, but it is all script - you ain't building a binary) XP second limitation - is that you cannot write software for it. There is NO WAY to write any software for XP, that you can walk into your bosses office and guarantee that the software will work tomorrow, the same way it works today. You DO NOT have the source code, so you cannot IEEE validate your system. If you have critical systems on your shop floor, using windows, your entire shop can go down because of something hidden away in that 400 meg of secret code.
      jdieter@...
    • various distros

      Funny. I can take my code written 5 years ago to ANY distro and it will compile and run. Things I wrote LAST MONTH with Visual Studio won't build and run on Vista. So, methinks it is Windows various distros that are incompatible with each other. Not Linux.
      jdieter@...
  • Very good article! This time a lot more than IBM are offering alternatives

    So, it looks like MS is at least going to lose market share to the tune of at least another 10% to 20% to IBM. Apple, Google, Zoho, etc. They have already lost 5% to Apple.
    DonnieBoy
    • Maybe because ...

      ... Apple rejected Linux as an inadequate kernel, Open Office as an unacceptable (un)productivity suite, KDE/GNome as UI, spends a lot of advertising and offered a value proposition that is perceived as convincing to people (whether that's true it's a different matter). IBM and Open Source zealots have never done that, so keep dreaming and keep using your XP to run apps that are not released to Linux yet (such as your beloved Google Chrome)
      markbn
      • Apple DID chose a Unix based kernel, and that means all of the great open

        source code compiles for Apple. Samba for instance is an important part of OSX. And, Mac users are starting to switch to OpenOffice for instance. But, Apple depends heavily on all of the open source pieces to make OSX viable.

        The only thing wrong with KDE/Gnome is they are too much like Windows.
        DonnieBoy
        • Did you read the post?

          The post was about LINUX + OPEN OFFICE

          Don't try to spin the subject.

          Linux and Open Office were rejected as inadequate by a company who knows how to lure desktop users. You have no argument about that.

          And please, don't show your ignorance. GNOME too similar to windows?? Unless you have been in Mars, you should have noticed that in the late years Gnome is moving steadily to resemble OS X's UI, not Windows'.
          markbn
          • Apple IS Unix

            Apple uses a Linux Kernel. You are just absolutely wrong in your post. OO runs on osx. You are the ignorant one.
            jdieter@...
          • You inspire sadness really

            OS X uses a "Linux kernel"? Sheesh. OMG, not even
            Donnie would say that.

            And BTW, I did not claim that OO does NOT run in OS X,
            just that Apple prefers to develop its own suite
            (iWork) instead of embracing OO like IBM
            markbn
  • Everybody wants to replace MSFT

    It's funny looking at those pathetic bugs like apple, google... want to replace MSFT.

    apple is a computer company, can't sell computer and turn to mp3 player. it just makes me laugh. i call apple computer IKEA computer, pretty and useless. no, IKEA furniture is really useful.

    forget to talk about google, the hell. a small search firm got lucky and make some money. but this money will be gone soon. want me to prove it? Do you remember when was last time you have clicked the sponsored results beside the search results? and why? because you know they are ads. a lot of people don't know, but they will very soon. and that's when google stop making money. when they stop making money, they are just a search engine, regardless how many people using it. you know Craig's list, Wikipedia, don't you?

    IBM is respectable company, however, but it is no compare to MSFT. i would tell them quit those staff. I worked with Linux for 2 years as a career, and i tell you linux is a joke, openoffice is another. you collect a bunch of those kind of stuff to compete? that's not IBM. I have always thought IBM should do some respectable stuff like 360, AS400... i don't think for a second that IBM becomes a garbage collector.
    jk_10
    • I dont

      I don't want to replace Microsoft. I simply want to be able to write a piece of software that runs today, tonight, tomorrow, next week, next year - without ever having to re-write it for the latest MS break. MS motto is written in huge letters "Make it break, make it hard". Perfect example? httpwebrequest. MS "AJAX" is thousands of lines of ridiculous code, to do what two lines of java script will do. And it is obsolete before it is written. We've seen 6 flavors of "COM", 16 different database libraries, MS crap is obsolete the day it comes out. Why do I.T. folks like MS? The same reason I like them. they keep me employed fixing their ever broken / changing crap.
      jdieter@...
  • RE: IBM Linux-OpenOffice Desktop offering - history repeating

    When Excel crashes opening a .xls spreadsheet, simply open it with OO and save. When an Excel sheet won't print correctly (cuts off wrapping text etc..) open the sheet in OO, it will print perfectly. When your child is having problems with the computer, give them linux and OO. Problems solved. Windows PC Covered with spy ware - unusable, viruses, ./.. stick in the Ubuntu CD, problems solved. My 70 year old Mom hasn't had one problem with Linux in 4 years. She had to PAY to have her Windows machine re-built every 6 months from viruses and malware. And the little ASUS machine, with Linux - a dream and so easy - everyone should have one. And in March - $100 Linux Laptops are going on sale at Krogers. Developers (like me) love Windows, because the software always breaks. Do Mechanics like cars that never break down?
    jdieter@...
  • John Akers killed OS/2

    Most of IBM's problem was IBM, not Microsoft. John Akers drove IBM into what seemed, at the time, to be an insurmountable debt. Also IBM had this arrogance whereby they treated customers with disdain because the business world would supposedly always need IBM. This Windows thing was a toy; businesses ran on S/390's and AS/400's. Microsoft caught IBM completely off guard.

    More proof that IBM felt that anything they would push would be the de facto standard? How about OS/2 for PowerPC. IBM stated that the demand was in the "single digits". How about Workplace OS? They never finished it because of its complexity. How about OpenDoc? Granted, it was better than OLE, but IBM felt they didn't have to market it much because it was an IBM product and everyone would want it.

    IBM's marketing was horrible. Remember the Butterfly laptop? IBM corrected us, pointing out that its name was not the Butterfly, but the 701. Yeah, what a catchy name: the 701. How about when OS/2 Magazine published an article on a search product named "Bloodhound"? That wasn't the software's real name, but Edwin Black (editor-in-chief) decided to experiment by using a code name, and it drew great interest. It was then revealed that the real product name was something lame like "search manager", and it fell into oblivion; brilliant, IBM.

    OS/2 was way ahead of its time. Not only could you run Windows apps in different memory spaces, it also featured preemptive multitasking. It did have a better Windows than Windows, and also a better DOS than DOS.

    Heck, OS/2 Warp 4 even had OpenGL and I used to run Apache 1.3 on OS/2.

    Things have changed at IBM, and I hope they don't make the same blunder as with OS/2 ... well, there's that port of Lotus Symphony nobody really cared about, but we'll try to forget that one also.
    davidr69
  • You can't replace windows over night.

    I don't think that IBM is trying to kill windows with linux. I rather think that they are trying to find a market where this type set up would make a lot of sense. Any place the has a lot of computers that do not need any complicated features could benefit from this set up rather than supporting hundreds of PCs (call centers come to mind). Also there are places that would prefer to go with Open Source rather than proprietary source (foreign government organizations perhaps)
    hamobu-22333136139518773481685514128812
  • History repeating: Thin clients

    This also reminds me to "thin clients" that companies like IBM and Sun were pushing for more than a decade and that were supposed to be Windows killers. They never materialized because PCs we always getting cheaper and cheaper so that no savings ever came to be.
    hamobu-22333136139518773481685514128812