IBM to Open Projects at SourceForge.net 179
cfelde writes "On Friday, IBM said it is contributing some 30 open-source projects to SourceForge.net. IBM also said it is expanding its own developerWorks Web site with more resources including training in PHP and other popular technologies." This probably dovetails with IBM's new full on support of the PHP language.
Re:Amazing (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyway, yes, it is weird. Not to long ago IBM was as hatred as Microsoft is now...
IBM And MONEY (Score:4, Insightful)
or do they plan to donate some money to it to help it all as a whole??
IBM is in an odd situation no doubt, but using OpenSource public tools when properly funded seems somewhat.. rude, no?
Re:Amazing (Score:5, Insightful)
If IBM was able to turn around from the "Bad Guy(tm)" to a geek's best friend, I think there is a possibility that many years from now, today's Evil Empire, Microsoft, might become a geek's best friend while, oh, let's say Google became the new "Bad Guy(tm)
May God help us all...which 30 projects? (Score:3, Insightful)
The Why (Score:5, Insightful)
What it's about:
An interesting bit on the transition and recovery of IBM was on the BBC a couple days back, refreshing and adding a layer of information to my memory of experience with the behemoth IT company. IBM's core business is selling service, not hardware (they sold the PC unit to Lenovo) and big iron doesn't sell much anymore, so they've come to the point of making some hardware, but throwing their weight behind systems and services. Why so much given to Open Source? IBM is more than just friendly to Linux and Open Source, but see them as their life blood. They won't make money pushing systems built around Microsoft Windows, because that leaves too much leverage in an external (and sometimes unfriendly) camp. Not to overlook the taint associated over the past few years with gaping security holes in Microsoft products, which could reflect very negatively on IBM having to go in and clean up the mess. A couple years ago IBM had already broken the 1G$ barrier on Linux systems, in one quarter. I haven't looked at their company statements lately, but it's clear this is their planned direction of growth.
You can't have it both ways. (Score:5, Insightful)
I think some folks just like to gripe.
Opening this code will dovetail nicely with IBM becoming more of a services-focused company. When BigCo wants a project implemented & maintained using open source, IBM will be there to lend a hand (for a price of course).
Re:Why am I worried.... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's really hard to fault you, actually. History is hard to forget, and it's not unreasonable to wonder if a company can really change it's culture and philosophy so radically.
On the other hand, if someone is giving you a bunch of cool stuff ( i.e. source code ), and doing so under terms ( i.e. license ) that are acceptable to you... it's generally a good thing. I'm not seeing the downside, at least for OSS developers. The downside could be there, of course... but I can't easily think of what it could be.
The upside for IBM, on the other hand, is pretty obvious... it's not like they've done this entirely without thinking of their own benefit. Maybe thinking of it that way will make you feel better? It's not so much that IBM has radically changed ( though it has ), it's that they've figured out how to leverage open source development ?
Re:Why am I worried.... (Score:3, Insightful)
I mean, when you think about it, does IBM really care if project X'sources, funded by them, are downloadable by everybody ? Oponents have their own solutions anyway, and are too intrically tied to it. Corporations are happy because they have IBM behind the project, and will buy IBM's support on a particular project if they need it. Plus, they know the code is really free. I think this is a big plus in a lot of smaller shops, who were typically afraid of IBM's known habit to gradually dig his customers into closed solutions.
And on top of that, IBM knows that if it plays the game well, free software developpers will help them, and push them into their own shops. So it's really a win-win situation for everybody, and they have no interest in cheating. Transparency is the key in this game, and they know it.
Re:You can't have it both ways. (Score:2, Insightful)
I think some folks just like to gripe.
Or else maybe there's more than one 'people' out there. But whatever, gripe away.
Re:Good news for PHP... (Score:5, Insightful)
To me, PHP is great for small, agile projects - ones that need to be designed and written quickly, and require a lot of changes to the code to happen throughout implementation.
I think OO PHP isn't all bad - being able to compartmentalize your code for reuse and complexity reduction is great.
My concern, however, is that people will start to look at PHP as an enterprise level language, which in my opinion, it isn't. Every PHP project that I've worked on started to break down after a certain level of complexity. I think part of this was due to the lack of Object Orientation, but I think part of it was also the nature of the language itself. I'll be interested to see what IBM can do with PHP, but lets just say I don't envy their guys if they're trying to switch their enterprise level development to use it.
Re:Amazing (Score:3, Insightful)
Today its Microsoft. But how many people love them for it? How many people would switch to a different OS because they believe monopolies are bad? Calling these corporations Evil Empires does nothing to help the ignorant consumer.
If Microsoft released their source code under the GPL they would also be a geek's best friend. Because geeks like me believe actions speak louder than words. As long as nobody seems to care about the threat a large corporation poses to their economy, geeks usually don't mind their support. Its like Republicans. As long as nobody wants to kick them out of office I'm willing to accept that $300 tax refund in exchange for my liberty. But I know what I am giving up.
Unlike all the ignorant masses, us geeks will be watching and judging.
So, uh, who ya gonna call Evil next?
Re:Good news for PHP... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Amazing (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why am I worried.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Open source software lives and thrives within a Windows environment. Given any of the common OS's, I can download and install legal software without paying a penny more. It doesn't matter if I am using a Mac or an x86 or something else, software is available.
If you want the Linux OS to suceed however, you have to convince Dell and HP and Time and Tiny that the OS on their machines is stable and can be supported. I do not know a single home user who has purchased or changed their operating system for a machine they have bought. They will put up with whatever is there until its hardware renewal time.
I couldn't care less what OS people use, as long as they have choice. Its in our own best interests though to push and market OSS principles and benefits to the rest of the world.
IBM and Novell have backed a winner in Linux, and with such big names standing behind it, it wont be long before others follow
Re:Amazing (Score:1, Insightful)
Unlike just about everyone else, MS can't adopt open source since it kills the only way they've figured out how to make money: charge top dollar for commodity software.
Open source doesn't really affect IBM's business plan, nor many other companies that are moving to or will eventualy end up embracing it.
MS, well they've got tons of cash, but their "out" is going to be much more complicated (like say, fundamentally changing what they do for a living -- and they've been trying for a long time with just about zero success).
Anyways, instead of attributing "good" or "evil" to companies, I think my personal views are swayed more by "what do they do for a living"? I really don't see much value in what MS does for the money they charge me (it's commodity technology and software after all), and there is some respect for a company that is doing something productive for the money they charge.
MS extorts money from me, and maybe they'll turn to "good guys" if they figure out a way of providing something, anything, that I feel is worthy of my money.
Anyways, IBM's out to make cash, just like MS, but they seem willing to do something useful in exchange whereas MS holds data in purposely obfuscated file formats to force people to give them money. For the same functionality, over and over again.
* I know that when IBM was "evil", it was pretty much for the same reason. Hey, they owned business computing and told people what they needed to buy. They then told them what they needed to pay IBM to make it happen. They forgot that "the customer is always right" and eventually it bit them in the butt. I fully expect the same thing to happen to MS -- and I have doubts their transformation will be as "easy" and "painless" as it was for IBM.
Anyways, why currently MS == "evil social parasite that contributes nothing to society nor its customers", IBM == "out to make money but at least willing to work for it" and why these could (and have) changed over time.
Re:Amazing (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, there is MS Research [microsoft.com] but it's in no way comparable to IBM Research [ibm.com].
And don't even mention MS and "quality" in the same breath unless the words "lack of" are placed between them.
Re:Good news for PHP... (Score:3, Insightful)
If a project gets complex, and you don't have a compiler to check your code before it runs, refactoring gets really difficult. You can still do some sort of unit testing. But the combination of unit testing and strong type language is much more powerfull.
If refactoring gets difficult and adjustments have to be implimented due to requirement changes, bugs will start to appear. And they will only rear their heads once the code is executed.
A class might still pass the unit test but without interface checking of a compiler you are never certain that other code using that class will not fail.
I could be doing something wrong but often when I have to change code in php I use grep to check whether other code is using that function etc.
Re:which 30 projects? (Score:4, Insightful)
However, I don't like the attitude in the above post. In the grand scheme of things, 30 projects is NOTHING, and it doesn't matter what they do. What matters is if collaboration and support rise and IBM likes the results that they get, they will do it MORE.
So quit griping - any support is good, and if the community supports it in return, you've made a good ally and have a good future.
Re:Why am I worried.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Ibm is behaving great, and I'll support them. My mom bought a thinkpad, if I buy a laptop it'll be a thinkpad, if my friends ask for something portable (not a desktop replacement laptop but a portable one)... they will get sent to ibm... now, if IBM changes their behavior, I can too. Until then (if ever), they get my support. Simple and fair.
Re:Amazing (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Large Corporations and Criticism (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why am I worried.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Lots and lots and lots of money.
But that's it. Nothing else.
If they think the best way to make money is by screwing their customers over, then many of them will do it.
But if a large corporation thinks it can make more money using a different approach, it will.
Free and open source software is the biggest movement in the software industry today, and is likely to be so for a long time. IBM is riding the wave, so to speak, but is smart enough to realise it's got to give a little as well as take. And it can still make lots of money doing so.
It's also in its interest to support a movement in which many people (but not all) have a strong dislike of several of their major competitors: Microsoft (deservedly so, I would say), Sun (a little harshly, in my opinion) and, increasingly it would seem, HP.
Re:I wish there was RHP instead of PHP (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Why am I worried.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Why am I worried.... (Score:2, Insightful)
But when we rant about how corporations are fundamentally evil and never going to change, all we're doing is accepting it. Corporations aren't bloated, undead beast-things that exist off of the souls of the living (well, except EA). They're organizations of people, and the ideals a corporation's leadership pushes are the ideals that corporation follows. We shouldn't be pushing selfless, dedicated people away from corporations and into the Peace Corps or god knows what else--we should be encouraging them to enter the corporate world and make changes. If you say that business is a career choice only for the selfish, manipulative and cruel, all you're doing is criticizing, demeaning and discouraging the people that do business who aren't any of those things.
Maybe I'm too idealistic, but I see a fundamentally healthy business as one that's profitable because it treats its customers well and fulfills a need customers have better than it had been fulfilled before. I see a corporation existing in any other state as unhealthy. And fine, a lot of corporate America is unhealthy. I'm not arguing that. But when did we start accepting that as a given?
Re:Why am I worried.... (Score:3, Insightful)
I can quite accept that IBM of the current decade has "good" motives. This helps me project the motives of the IBM of 10-15 years from now. But it's no certain guide.
I put more faith in the GPL...and even there I'm not certain. One never knows what some legislature may decide, or some court.
For this reason I support having a variety of Free Software licenses used, and housing the sources in a variety of countries. There is no certain protection, but minimizing the breaking points is as big a help as carefully designing each one. Grass is more successful than are Sequoia trees. (OTOH, the Dutch Elm is no more. Linkages can be dangerous.)