[vox] OS/2 and Linux, why has IBM changed?

[vox@lists.lugod.org]

Peter Jay Salzman scribbled with alacrity:

> i think it's a matter of survival rather than good will to mankind.

Certainly.

Nothing inherently wrong with that. If a paradigm is viable, it will have
"adaptive value" in the evolutionary scheme of the social ecosystem.

IMO, management fails when it doesn't clearly comprehend the adaptive
value of a paradigm, and keeps from creating obstacles to the growth of
the paradigm.


> way back when, IBM was strong and healthy.  they *could* butt heads with
> microsoft, but for what purpose?  they were top of their game.  they
> followed the old dictum "nobody ever got poor by buying IBM".  they were
> on the microsoft band wagon and, more or less, peacefully coexisted.  to
> push OS/2 would upset the balance of things.

According to "The Innovator's Dilemma", paradigm failure always happens
when a company is at the top of its game.

(DEC is a more clear example of paradigm failure than IBM because DEC's
products had more exposure to being displaced by competition from PC
servers and desktops, and didn't have the safety net of mainframes to fall
back on while regrouping).

There is specific "evidence" that IBM's top management was initially on
the fence about OS/2, and that once OS/2 started showing promise, it got
shut down for reasons that have more to do with "vision" than markets or
technology.

My theory, which could be mostly "manoora", is that the idea of mass
market products/services was so alien to the core paradigm of old tech
elites that produced high-end products/services (such as IBM) that they
simply could not support a organizational "vision" or "culture" that
supported the growth of mass market products.


> then IBM became less healthy.  they no longer own the hardware market (i
> don't even KNOW anybody with a real IBM manufactured home system
> anymore).

I think that a survey of market data might surprise you.

But, supposedly IBM never really made money on desktops. They made them so
that they could compete with a complete vertical product stack (all the
way from mainframe to laptop) for large customers that wanted a "single
vendor" solution.

>they diversified into software applications and became a
> competitor with MS.   at the same time, microsoft has played footsy with
> other hardware competitors that have, historically, been IBM's main
> competitors.

ok.

> in recent years, IBM has become a ship lost at sea.  no focus and no
> direction.  it was a company that was dying of attrition.  IBM was
> trying to make gains in ecommerce solutions, voice enabled software, web
> applications, hardware and uhh...  typewriters.   ;-)  (j/k)

My understanding is that more mainframes were sold, but far, after the
internet boom than before. storage needs for .com stuff were massive.

I think IBM sells something like 98% of mainframes.

Look at IBM's contract to run the IT stuff for the Olympics. People say it
is a huge and impressive sucess story.

>From what I know, IBM got "lost" way back as a result of the PC
revolution, not recently. The guy that just retired as head of IBM brought
them back from that some years ago.

For context, I remember in the early 90s seeing hyper aggressive commando
squad type IBM sales guys "taking on" DEC at a customer site.

At that point (pre-internet and ".com" boom), PCs and LANs were still not
taken all that seriously.

(remember the presenter's joke about SNA?)


> linux provides IBM with a focus.  they prolly recognize that the company
> is dying of atrophy.   MS is a peripheral competitor, but one that IBM
> knows it can't beat on its own.  the only thing that can beat microsoft
> is a free product, which IBM knows it can't provide.

I was slightly surprised when the presenter at the meeting said that IBM's
Linux stuff was initially generating more hardware sales than software and
services (he then stated that they are now about even, or hardware
revenues are less then Linux software/services revenues).

IBM has been attempting to reposition itself as a enterprise services
company for several years.


> when anybody thought of IBM, they thought of typewriters.  then times
> changed.  when anybody thought of IBM, they thought of the PC.  then
> times changed, and suddenly IBM had no killer product.  nobody uses
> typewriters.  nobody owns a REAL IBM PC.  and a company the size of IBM
> can't survive selling mainframes these days because mainframes are out
> of vogue.

I don't totally disagree, but see above about increased sales of
mainframes and actual market numbers for PC sales.


>for most applications, a powerful PC or a cluster of PC's are
> simply more cost effective.

The presenter at the meeting said that IBM is selling billions of dollars
of "big iron" that run NT/Linux on OS partitions. I've heard old mainframe
sysadmns that talk about running 25+ NT/Linux OS instances/partitions on
one mainframe.

I take such generalized revenue numbers with a grain of salt, but it looks
like serious business.


>i believe the ESS 5 phone switch uses the
> x86 architecture for its control store.

sorry, never heard of it. :)

> i think IBM is counting on people thinking of IBM when they think of
> linux applications.  which is great for them because linux, for better
> or worse, is so far the hot buzzword of the late 90's/early 00's.

If they can catch the evolutionary wave of an emerging paradigm that has
high adaptive value, it could ensure success in the market.

> i have a feeling this is going to be a high volume thread.   ;-)

ah.

regards,
ep



> On Thu 08 May 03,  9:15 AM, Eric D. Pierce
> opined:
>> Per the presentation from IBM, does anyone have any
>> observations on why they are so enthusiastic about Linux,
>> but they never properly supported or marketed OS/2?
>>
>> Conventional wisdom is that top management at IBM never
>> intended to let the OS/2 group really "bust loose", and
>> OS/2 was even specifically torpedoed by top IBM management
>> once its incredible potential became obvious.