>
> Wrong, wrong, wrong. It is best to think of IBM as being a coalition
> of separate divisions that are both competing with each other, but
> also working together. Like a trail of those eucalptus
> caterpillars in
> some respects.
>
> This was probably the decsion of a division VP, if it was that high.
You will be surprised at how the 'new' IBM moves. Alas here in Oz
those moves are not felt (in fact the Oz division of IBM is positively
lethargic), but the person Lou Gerstner put in charge of Linux
strategy, a Irving Wladawsky-Berger is widely tipped to be the next in
line for the top job.
I have recently had the good fortune to talk to some people at IBM
labs at Hursley, Raleigh & Pittsburgh and they have said that they
have had clear directions right from the top to supply/port all IBM
s/w on to Linux.
Some marketing stuff
http://www.ibm.com/servers/news/linux.phtml
>
> If IBM was going open source, they would have released OS/2 to the
> developers who have been asking for a few years to take over it's
> continual development.
>
> An Open Source release is fast replacing the beta-release program.
>
Alas, Microsoft will never allow IBM to release OS/2 as open source.
If you can recollect, Microsoft still has a lot of joint licensing
over the OS/2 core.
You just have to recollect on how IBM moved in the licensing strategy
for Jikes. After the initial critisms of the license, they openly
consulted with the wider community and changed their license in double
quick time.
PS : I am not a big fan of IBM, but of all the large traditional IT
corporations, only they have been making the right noises with respect
to Linux and I have to give credit where credit is due. Witness the
SUN fiasco with SCSL and you know IBM is on the right track with GPL.
-- Aravind
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux Users Group Mailing List - http://www.slug.org.au
To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
unsubscribe in the text
