On Sat, 27 Jun 1998, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
[Major Snip]
> To me, an IBM link could be best, even if it never totally grasps the GPL
> and makes all its addons proprietary. (The company's recent endorsement of
> Apache makes me think that they *do* get it, though.) IBM's embrace of
> Java, the likelyhood of native ports of Notes, 123 to Linux as well as
> robust SAA integration, an established presence in the enterprise and a
> worldwide reputation for support are just some of the ways Linux could
> benefit from IBM's participation.
>
> With IBM's AIX version of Unix floundering, its being quieter than Compaq
> or HP at screaming love for NT, and its being the only Unix vendor without
> a Merced strategy, could this happen?
>
> Stranger things have come to pass.
>
Th 'ONLY PROBLEM' with IBM is their longevity and commitment to a product
of direction in excess of 24 months.
Personally, I stay away from ANYTHING that is has the IBM label on it. You
can not depend on IBM to stay with the program or direction for a long
period of time. When I take my petroleum distribution software and port it
to a new OS, I exepect the company that I select to maintain that OS or
interface for more than two years with on-going committed support.
There must be some business model at IBM that has a 24 month automatic
cutoff for major support. Since the introduction of the PC by IBM, almost
all products are supported for about 24 months then they are 'DeFocused'
and allowed to die.
YMMV.
--Hal.
--
PLEASE read the Red Hat FAQ, Tips, Errata and the MAILING LIST ARCHIVES!
http://www.redhat.com/RedHat-FAQ /RedHat-Errata /RedHat-Tips /mailing-lists
To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe" as the Subject.
