IBM WebSphere SE To Be Opened? 71
JoyToy writes ""AS PART OF its crusade to marginalize operating systems such as Windows, IBM is leaning toward giving the Standard Edition of its WebSphere application server to the open-source community."
"
Re:Dang, Now we got to find something else. (Score:2)
Dare I ask, why bother shifting products just because IBM changed it's licensing?
There are a number of perfectly legitimate reasons to switching to Netscape server from apache, but it's folly to think "it's opensource" to be one of those reasons.
My two Cents.
-K
Have yet to get it to run. (Score:1)
--pug
The browser (Score:3)
--
way to go IBM! (Score:1)
are they seeing the light or is it just payback time?
Re:IT Personals (Score:1)
Its more correct to what your sig is. Yoda like, it sounds.
Re:Like this is gonna work... (Score:1)
Point 2: Linux cannot "go under within two years", since "Linux" is not a commercial entity. If all the commercial Linux vendors dissapeared today, there would still be distributions available, and there would still be Linux users.
Point 3: Are you seriously saying that Linux is endangered because IBM may refocus the emphasis of the platform toward the geek community? Have you ever met a Linux user?
I know I'm a bit stupid (Score:1)
Pity it's better on NT... (Score:2)
On NT, on the other hand, it works. And it works well. You may be interested to know that IBM internally build WAS on NT first ('because it's cheaper'), then port to AIX, Linux, and Solaris. The NT SCM (Service Control Manager) controls the WAS services properly, unlike the rather dodgy shell scripts shipped with the *NIX version.
Still, if they go open source, then nothing will make them wrong in
Re:Like this is gonna work... (Score:1)
First off, IBM can't kill the open source movement. At this point no one could, and that's the main reason the open source movement is catching on outside of the "pocket protector" crowd.
0S/2 didn't fail because it targeted the techie market anymore then Apple failed because of its success with graphic design.
IBM lost to Microsoft because they couldn't expand their user base past the tech crowd and more importantly, because they didn't provided developers with compelling tools that made them want to recommend OS/2 for internal projects.
Re:1995 (Score:1)
Re:You know what I want opened? (Score:1)
with the advancement of CORBA 3.0 there is already support for the component objects in the OSS environment. Maturity ? That is an issue that would be addressed by the community! If it is already mature what would you do for a kick!
Re:Whoda Thunk? (Score:1)
change the hell out of it!
just compile IL in the CRT and who gives a crap
if it's composed of abacus symbols
guess what? you'll be able to interop with anbody else's idea of what code should look like -- that's why it's an open standard
Re:What is Websphere? (Score:1)
Re:Have yet to get it to run. (Score:1)
I've installed it dozens of times on NT, Linux, and AIX. Never had a problem with it not running immediately after reboot. The install instructions are complete (I have never found them otherwise) and if you follow them to the letter, you should have no problem. Granted it's never going to work everytime so...
What version were you trying to install? OS? etc.
Re:Don't Believe the Hype .. (Score:1)
Either this was a mistake or it was a deliberate statement. If the former, it could easily have been caught with some simple fact checking. If the latter, well...
Personally, the "WebSphere Application Server ready for e-Business" message displayed in the admin console when the server starts up leaves little to the imagination as to IBM's motives.
Within the context of the application server market, this is also a smart move by their part. I'd expect at least one other "major vendor" to soon follow suit.
Re:Whoda Thunk? (Score:1)
I doubt that'll be much of a problem, MS can make C# the language of choice for writing Windows apps, and the Windows cult will follow. I suspect IBM will have a hard time truly adopting C#, both because it will be tied to Windows (that was the whole point of ditching Java and coming up with C#, Sun wouldn't let MS make a Windows-locked version of Java), and, as you say,
Microsoft can change IL however it likes with each upgrade to C#, making sure everyone else (including IBM) plays catch-up to MS and can't really produce a good C# compiler.
(See OS/2 and Windows app compatibility)
Re:way to go IBM! (Score:1)
It may be pretty clear to IBM by now that they don't have any chance of dominating the software market on their own, and the most likely scenario, if things continue as they are now, is that it will end up being even more completely dominated by MS, even on the server side. Much better for IBM if the software market is dominated by open software, of which they can at least be a part, rather than being completely at MS' dubious mercy.
Other possible factors: I believe IBM may have larger revenues from consulting and such than from software sales. They can get more software bang for their research and development bucks with open source development, since they hopefully have a large community helping out.
Re:FUD nothing, call IBM tech support and ASK (Score:1)
Never used it myself... but is that only on AIX? How about Linux, Solaris, HP-UX?
.technomancer
Re:Dang, Now we got to find something else. (Score:1)
Actually... (Score:3)
Re:way to go IBM! (Score:1)
They realize that they can't build a bigger cathedral than Mr. Gates & Co, so they're taking their customers out into the bazaar with them. ;-)
- So Big Blue, got a clue
Derwen
Re:Like this is gonna work... (Score:2)
2: Linux can go under in the sense that the recent Linux craze can crash and turn to be a fad. And it will.
3: I am a Linux user. Here's how IBM can kill the platform.
I'm not saying IBM's mistake is focusing the platform on geeks. I'm saying IBM's mistake is focusing on geeks, period. They're using Linux as the evagelization tool of choice to attract geeks.
However, by trying to take Linux out of its OSS context, IBM is exposing Linux to mass markets before it is ready to take on the desktop market head on. They're trying to press the advantage of OSS, and frankly, I don't think they care for Linux beyond the fact it's a good way to endear themselves to the geeks.
Thus, IBM is once again taking a product before it is able to compete on the desktop market, and pushing it to the sky. Too bad this means Linux will receive a lukewarm reception from the mass market, and will forever be remembered as another attempt by IBM to promote an OS with not chutzpah.
In closing, I really, really didn't care for your sophism-laden condescending attitude, Mr. 'Have you ever met a Linux user'. For crissakes, did you notice this is SLASHDOT?
Re:THEY CAN KEEP THEIR TRASH (Score:2)
Hope this helps.
Re:I know I'm a bit stupid (Score:1)
So yes, Websphere competes with ATG, BEA, SilverStream, etc. but they also all compete with Windows on a certain level. Now, obviously the application server idea cannot replace all of the current uses of Windows in the corporate environment, but think call centers and the like. Order entry can just as easily be done in an JSP based application or an applet along with any other duties of the majority of order/data entry people.
Re:THEY CAN KEEP THEIR TRASH (Score:2)
Re:Have yet to get it to run. (Score:1)
Tivoli and Conspiracy Theories (Score:2)
Second, while not espousing theories of conspiracy that the evil blue empire is on the verge of world domination, I would be cautious in approaching the blue flag of universal friendship. Bad blood between the Unix vendors runs deep and wide and the "embracing of OSI" initiative is a largely political stance to get IBM back into the mainstream culture. I've heard some of the top AIX developers/integrators say "there's a few good ideas in Linux .. like the small graphical install packages", while at the same time saying that they will introduce new functionality in AIX that comes directly from linux source code without giving proper due credit. This effectively goes to the point of stealing code back out of some linux utilities, and then figuring out how little of it they are obligated to make public again.
On top of this AIX has never been a strong O/S (BSD base and slow to adopt later SVR4 revisions - only recently with the acquisition of SCO do they have the license and have things like truss been announced for the O/S) .. IBM knows this, and is looking for ways to popularize their lack of technology and innovation - mainly the good old fashioned way of copying and changing a little to make it look like your own (like a good percentage of dissertations out there) .. much in linux has this same form of flattery, and a merger of the two means that we now have a hybrid imitation of many things that are better done and supported elsewhere with no real advancement in the field itself. This muddying of the technical waters has persisted for many years, and through the duping of much of the "technical mainstream" will persist for many more while a rift develops between what people understand and what they think they understand. All the while this leads to large $$ capital position as phony needs are created, and a large "enterprise with XX years experience" steps in and says we can support that .. it doesn't take a genius to figure out that the s/w industry will be peanuts compared to the future h/w and service industry.
sigh .. enough ranting for a day ..
Damned if you do, and damned if you don't. (Score:3)
Of course IBM wants to dominate the industry. Every public company has a fiduciary duty to it's stockholders to attempt to gain a monopoly position in every market it enters. (Remember having a monopoly is not illegal, just using illegal means to maintain it.)
Next, who cares what IBM's intentions are? So what if they want to dominate hardware and services? Take the source and run! Ignore IBM's pleas to pay them to integrate. Hang up on the marketing rep when he tries to sell you hardware. Once you have the source, what the hell do you need IBM for? If you don't want IBM to be a focal point for change, fork the code!
Don't like "Tivoli Ready Modules"? Don't use 'em! Don't want to use VisualAge? Fine, who is going to stop you?
Exasperated at hair-trigger morons,
SirWired
IBM are a little late here. (Score:3)
If IBM released the EJB container, on the other hand, that'd be cool. There isn't a halfway-decent free-as-in-liberty EJB implementation that I know of.
I work with Websphere Advanced Edition for my day-job and really like it, but I don't think I'd bother with the standard edition even if it were open-source - there's already enough code out there, and Websphere isn't particularly friendly to install or configure on *nix.
On the other hand, IBM have been really good lately about releasing Java stuff to the open-source community. The XML/XSLT packages that they donated to the Apache project are pretty damn funky, for example.
--
Re:You know what I want opened? (Score:1)
The source code for the OS/2 version of OpenDOC is already available to DevCon members.
However, it requires SOM/WPS which aren't open source.
I would like to see the source code to SOM and WPS made available to all. It is curious that the last version of SOM was version 3.0 yet OS/2 is still shipping with version 2.4
Excuse me, but... (Score:1)
Christian R. Conrad
My ISP is the Saunalahti company, of Finland.
Re:Don't Believe the Hype .. (Score:1)
That is when you lose the fairness in competition.
There is a great difference in being dominant through being the best than being dominant through being the most crooked.
Re:IBM are a little late here. (Score:3)
Well, there is jBoss [jboss.org], GPL licensed EJB server (supports 1.1). Scheduled for release 1st of September. The CVS version works quite well already.
Dear Mr. Ska: (Score:1)
I know what they should open source.... (Score:1)
Who needs directories and files when you have LIBRARY and MEMBERs!!!
Green screens shall inherit the earth.
Re:Whoda Thunk? (Score:1)
c# is compiled. The IL is most likely part of the standardised process, but it doesn't matter so much, since its easily reverse engeneeringalbe, and just like Java 1.2 needs a new JRE, so would MS common language runtime 1.1. What is outside the standard process is this common language runtime. Its what needs the most porting effort. c# is basically c++ with vbrun700.dll architecture.
Re:Damned if you do, and damned if you don't. (Score:1)
At least with the SCSL you have a license that is consistent with their intentions (apparently protection of a standard), but with IBM giving the appearance of embracing the OSI while maintaining unfair business practices in other venues we have what is inconsistent and appears to be more like the pied piper in the community bandwagon .. for a company that is not open to leapfrog 4 levels and suddenly announce they are completely OSI comfortable either indicates that they are either dishonest and not considering the broader implications of what this should mean, or desparate (if we learned anything from pre-MS history, I think you might already know the answers as history has a habit of repeating itself) .. I personally would be more comfortable if they were more honest about their intentions and developed their own License to address those concerns as an intermediary step.
Re:You know what I want opened? (Score:2)
Re:Have yet to get it to run. (Score:1)
--pug
Re:You know what I want opened? (Score:1)
IBM has left it to Apple to open the sources to the NT and Mac versions. Something which I don't think they will do.
THEY CAN KEEP THEIR TRASH (Score:1)
Dang, Now we got to find something else. (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:3)
IBM... (Score:3)
IBM is really heading up on my respect-o-meter. Moving to Linux, making a very good JDK, and now Web Sphere. Cool.
What is Websphere? (Score:2)
don't mod this up, it's just for reference. (ie, not insightful!)
You know what I want opened? (Score:4)
OS/2> At least make it free for personal use. The bloody thing is still $200 or so. I mean it only gets used in a small market, so why not free it up? They can't possibly be making much money of it.
SOM> There needs to be a CORBA independant object model on free OSs. Nothing against CORBA, but there needs to be a lighter weight alternative.
OpenDOC> The perfect thing to boost up Linux. Of course both GNOME and KDE are working object models and embedding, but OpenDOC/SOM are both more mature, and a good deal lighter in weight. However, they might have problems opening this up due to the cooperation with Apple.
Re:The browser (Score:2)
If IBM were to throw developers at Mozilla would it really speed things up? It might just make things chaotic and unorganized, thus slowing development. To tell you the truth I would really like to see Mozilla without the email reader, or news reader or any of that other crap that I don't use and be a pure web browser.
Molog
So Linus, what are we doing tonight?
Jakarta (Score:1)
Jakarta : jsp 1.1 servlet 2.2 (jakarta.apache.org) websphere se : jsp 1.0 servlet 2.1
Don't Believe the Hype .. (Score:2)
bull-hockey!! while I agree with the first part (prevention of Sun or Microsoft to gain dominance), IBM is still out to be dominant. This is attempted (subtle distinction) not through creation of a new technology but rather assimilation and change of "popular" technologies as they set themselves up to be the source point for change
.. beware of large wooden gift horses ..
WebSphere includes "Tivoli Ready Modules" - is Tivoli open source? Integration with IBM VisualAge .. is this open source? and will most likely run best on AIX (ever look at the licensing structure for their O/S?) which will enable them to sell more hardware (where everyone knows the real $$ come from)
By positioning themselves in the middle of the market and jumping on the bandwagon to pigeonhole and point the finger at other companies, they make their own bad policies and practices less apparent. Ever look at the cost for IBM services? This is what they really want to sell and dominate.
Like this is gonna work... (Score:2)
Was OS/2 efficient? Yeah. It was stable, customizable, you name it. But OS/2 had a big problem: it was aimed at techies and geeks, while Windows was targeted at marketers and end users.
Guess who has the most power? Sorry, it's the end users, directors and marketers. OS/2's fate proves that. IBM obviously hasn't learned their lesson in the way they now approach the server market, because they're attempting it all over again by catering to Open Source geeks.
Careful that IBM doesn't accidentally kill the Open Source movement by mistake... If IBM corners the market as efficiently with WebSphere as it did with OS/2, expect Linux to go under within two years.
Re:Marginalize Windows??? (Score:1)
1995 (Score:1)
Re:Whoda Thunk? (Score:2)
Now this has got to have both MS and Sun singing the blues. IBM, who currently has the fastest and best java implementation is promising to back C# if it gains status as an international standard. Ouch. Sun would lose its biggest ally on the Java front and MS would see its next attempt at world domination spinning out of Bill G's control.
I don't think it would set Sun back much - they said they might place support for C# "On Par", or equal to Java support. That doesn't mean they would abandon Java at all...
However, backing C# the language is not really very interesting at all unless they would also back IL, the intermediate language C# is compiled into. As far as I know that is not being sumitted to a standards body so Microsoft can change IL however it likes with each upgrade to C#, making sure everyone else (including IBM) plays catch-up to MS and can't really produce a good C# compiler. Plus there is the problem of convincing enough people to switch to C# when it offers only marginal benfits over Java.
Re:Whoda Thunk? (Score:1)
That being said, I don't doubt IBM's commitment to eliminating choke points that affect them (like Microsoft), I just don't think we should overestimate their commitment to openness. The important thing is that IBM is learning and growing and we can help the learn more and grow more in the future.
Websphere != apache ?? (Score:1)
I was under the impression that websphere was little more then apache, jserv, and a few other well known software projects.
I was also under the impression that websphere was regarded as one of ibm's worst software packages.
Re:The browser (Score:2)
The developers who are working on this will be at Warpstock 2000 [warpstock.org] on Septmeber 9/10 in Philadelphia to talk about it, if you want to learn more.
--
Re:1995 (Score:2)
Re:Have yet to get it to run. (Score:1)
version 3.02 is now out for linux and is quite a bit better than 2.03, especially on the administration front (imo)
if you're still interested, i'd suggest checking it out. you should be able to download the standard edition at ibm's software site
Re:Damned if you do, and damned if you don't. (Score:1)
Next, is there even one example of IBM stealing Open Source Software and touting it as their own? While you can't expect that they will issue a press release for every little bug fix, I really don't think that they would steal any kind of major dev. effort. Remember that Sun tried this with the Blackdown fiasco.
I think IBM's new religion on Linux is genuine. You really think IBM enjoys writing DB2 over and over again for seven different operting systems? (Palm, Win16, Win32, WinNT/2000, AIX, OS/400 and OS/390) If IBM has a standard base to build value-added services and custom software, it sure makes their lives a lot easier. If WebSphere becomes a defacto standard (or at least widely used) application server, IBM can now sell services contracts (big $) that much easier. If the open version is a stepping stone, customers are more likely to buy the full (not-so-open) version.
Will IBM ever go totally open-source? No. IBM currently makes more money selling software licenses than any other company on the planet (including Microsoft and Oracle) It would be suicide for the Board of Directors (i.e. shareholder lawsuits) if they decided to give all that up. However, IBM would love to have commodity parts of the system open-source (i.e. web browsers) so it can spend precious dev. dollars on more lucrative packages. (What would you rather sell, a $60 OS (i.e. Windows), or a multi-million $ transaction processing package?) How can you say IBM's intentions are not clear. They have not once said that they want all software to be open. They have merely committed to keeping open standards open, and getting as much of their software ported to Linux as possible. IBM doesn't think like RMS, and it would be unreasonable to expect them to do so.
SirWired
Re:Like this is gonna work... (Score:2)
IBM's core business is selling hardware. IBM only ever started selling software to avoid being accused of bundling during its antitrust days. Think about it - it's sure be easier for IBM if Linux was mature enough that they didn't have to maintain AIX any more.
I don't see IBM throwing Linux at the desktop market. Sure, they're making the occasional press-release that only gets mentioned on slashdot, and they're doing nifty research projects with it, but they're no more positioning Linux as a desktop OS than they are AIX. Look at the ports they've actually done for Linux - Websphere, DB2, Linux for OS/390 and Domino Server. They've ported the Domino server, but not the Notes client. Server, not desktop.
Yes, having Linux run on your Really Big Servers (and really small watches) attracts geeks. If you attract combine giving geeks what they want (Linux compatibility) with giving suits what they want (big-company supplier), you sell hardware. But I don't see how this is harming Linux at all.
I remember when they said this about the Internet. "Oh, it's just like CB radio. In a few years the fad will be over and only the geeks will be left." Maybe we need an "Imminent Death of Linux Predicted, Film at 11!" meme?
Charles Miller
--
Re:What is Websphere? (Score:1)
IT Personals (Score:3)
IBM: free OpenDoc! (Score:2)
Re:What is Websphere? (Score:3)
the only changes are... (Score:1)
I had the blessed experience of developing a global intranet based on WebSphere, and it was practicaly decidedly Open Source two years ago...
neitzert
Tivoli... (Score:1)
Anyone care to shed some light on what some of the more common Tivoli products are? We've recently begun seeing it here around our office, although the Tivoli site offers little information on what's what. (Been told we're migrating to this from SMS, because of stability and "added benefits," although no one has told me what those might be.)
Enquiring minds want to know, and all that...:)
Tone down the conspiracy theories. (Score:1)
Ayway, if IBM could gain a monopoly in services for an Open Source software industry, that would be quite the feat! And if the source is open, why the hell would it "run best" on AIX only? Have you ever actually USED the product? If anything, it currently "runs best" on NT.
IBM is still a company,and it still needs to make money. If IBM doesn't encourage people to buy more IBM hardware, what possible reason could IBM have to release any software ever?
Whoda Thunk? (Score:5)
Holy Cripes! That could have come straight from the mouth of RMS himself! Who would have ever guessed that a corporate behemoth like big blue could start to grok the true advantages of open source?
Now this has got to have both MS and Sun singing the blues. IBM, who currently has the fastest and best java implementation is promising to back C# if it gains status as an international standard. Ouch. Sun would lose its biggest ally on the Java front and MS would see its next attempt at world domination spinning out of Bill G's control.
And this is the part that really rocks my boat,
Perhaps I need to go find a copy of the annual report, but it seems to me that Lou is stating that IBM wants to go full fledged open source to be a pure hardware + services company. I could be wrong, but I don't see what other technological choke points there could be....
First Novell and now this? (Score:1)
Still, if it evens the field a little, then go, Big Blue!
Re:Dang, Now we got to find something else. (Score:3)
I am sure a smart and visionary company like this can write it's own implementation of WebSphere.
Re:Dang, Now we got to find something else. (Score:5)
So how's the weather in Redmond?