On Sep 7, 12:38 am, Darth Chaos <DarthChaosofR...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> IIRC, the only times Microsoft and IBM hooked up were when Microsoft
> licensed MS-DOS to IBM for dirt cheap
When IBM turned to Microsoft for PC-DOS, they had been rebuffed by
Gary Kildall of CP/M fame, because IBM wanted him to sign a
nondisclosure and noncompete agreement which would have put him out of
the CP/M, MP/M, and CP/M-86 game.
Gary didn't want to turn his back on his previous customers.
When Gates claimed that he had an operating system, he wasn't
completely lying, Microsoft actually DID have Xenix which they had
produced based on AT&T Unix Version 6 and had marketed with the Tandy
6000 based 68000 based computer.
Of course, that wasn't the OS that Bill wanted to provide to IBM, and
he had read about QDOS (Quick and Dirty OS) which had been written for
the Z-80 processor and some very basic hardware, but it was a work-
alike to CP/M, and even included some dissassembled CP/M code that had
been translated to the Z-80 memnonics.
Ironically, Microsoft had to dissasemble the Z-80 code into intel
memnonics, then determine what needed to be 8088 specific. Still, it
was a LOT faster than trying to create an equivalent to CP/M from
scratch.
IBM may also have wanted to keep the new PC a bit "dumb", because they
didn't want PCs biting into their terminal, mainframe, and
minicomputer market. It was too late for the Minicomputer market, and
the Series-1 minicomputer couldn't compete with PCs and "sneaker-
net" (passing floppies between users).
The irony is that IBM didn't set up the PC as a "Terminal Emulator" to
replace 3270 terminals, but the PC made a very nice UNIX Terminal.
Later, terminals such as the H-19 and Z-19 terminals were actually PCs
with no disk drive, and terminal in ROM. Some terminals were even
programmable, with the ability to download small programs through the
RS-232 connection.
> and when Microsoft and IBM collaborated on OS/2.
The OS/2 collaboration was always a bit tense. IBM was very concerned
about quality control. They wanted a 32 bit operating system that
supported true multitasking, unlimited windows, and high quality
networking. To IBM, the product to beat was AT&T Unix. IBM knew,
from the release of the 80386, that the cost of UNIX would go down,
and it wouldn't be long before UNIX, or something very much like it,
was available on PCs for a price that was competitive with MS-DOS.
Microsoft was used to seat-of-the-pants coding and the "three finger
salute" (cntrl-alt-delete) was such a common practice that people just
assumed that they were supposed to reboot their PCs several times per
day. Gates was very frustrated with IBM's "bureaucracy, the constant
reporting, documentation of design changes, and detailed accounting
records. IBM knew that Microsoft was also working on Windows, and
didn't want to end up paying for Windows development.
Eventually, an audit revealed that Bill Gates had personally ordered
the embezzlement of about 3 billion from IBM. IBM was getting charged
for Windows developers, and Gates personally ordered the Windows teams
to use OS/2 code that had been designed and developed on IBM's dime,
often with IBM's engineering help.
With the release of Windows 3.0 and Microsoft's public denouncement of
OS/2, IBM and Microsoft got their "divorce", with IBM getting the
right to embed Windows functionality in OS/2 (about 70% of the OS/2
PCs sold were sold with BOTH Windows and OS/2).
Microsoft also have IBM the 32 bit code for OS/2, which turned out to
be more trouble than it was worth. It took Boca Raton almost 3 years
to fix errors caused by sloppy Microsoft programming and lack of
awareness of concepts like reentrant code, race conditions, and
deadlocks. When everything was cleaned up in Warp 4.0, Microsoft
tried to force IBM to stop marketing OS/2 as a precondition for
getting Windows 95. When that didn't work, Microsoft threatened to
revoke the right of Retailers to turn on Windows PCs if OS/2 PCs were
displayed in the store.
By 1996, IBM was looking for a "Unix Desktop" to compete with
Windows. They had very good results with AIX, and Lou Gerstner's
shift to customer focused consulting as opposed to "pushing products,
wanted or not" showed that customers and clients were very receptive
to AIX. So successful that IBM decided to put UNIX on the Mainframe,
which became one of the "personalities" of OS/390.
IBM had contracted with SCO, in a joint project with HP, DEC, and
Compaq, for a cheap Intel version of UNIX that could be run on small
"Merced" PC Servers as well as desktops and laptops. By late 1997,
SCO was way behind schedule. IBM gave them some code to help
accelerate the development, but it was almost like SCO was "dragging
it's feet". Is it possible that Microsoft was working to hold back,
or stall the development?
Meanwhile, the Linux kernel team had a fully functional version of
Linux working on the Merced Simulator. That was enough to impress
IBM, and soon Sam Palmisano was publicly announcing IBM's support for
Linux. About 6 months later, he was named Lou Gerstner's successer as
CEO of IBM.
Any notion that Microsoft is a "front" for IBM is quite amusing. I'm
sure that Sam would find it to be quite a surprise. Since the
announcement of Vista, Sam has been cutting ties with Microsoft as
much as possible, selling off the PC division, and even selling most
(all?) of their equity interest in Lenovo.
Internally, IBM purchased their transferrable licenses to XP/2000 and
Office, added Linux support to their standard software installer, and
removed MS-Office from the same installer. In effect, IBM has adopted
a strategy that eliminates the need to pay Microsoft anything for
Windows or Office. They are offering Notes 8 to all employees, and
Symphony to all clients. Eclipse based plug-ins can be used for
project management and "visio style" diagrams.
> I think he made the claim on either the Friday edition or Thursday
> edition of his radio show. I've posted links to both shows.
> http://rss.nfowars.net/20080905_Fri_Alex.mp3 ; (Friday show)
> http://rss.nfowars.net/20080904_Thu_Alex.mp3 ;(Thursday show)
> I admit I listen to that radio show frequently, but even I think
> claiming MS to be an IBM front is ridiculous.
IBM and Microsoft are at odds on numerous fronts.
IBM is supporting Linux and OSS, and has even released their on OSS,
putting it under control of non-profit organizations.
IBM is a big supporter of Open Document Format, Microsoft is pushing
OpenXML.
IBM just publicly exposed vulnerabilites with Windows/ActiveX, and can
back it up.
(These hacks have been published since 1997, but Microsoft keeps
getting injunctions against the small blogger style web sites).
IBM is a major supporter of Platform Independent Java (J2SE and J2EE),
while Microsoft has pushed .NET and other "Windows Only" technologies.
IBM even did a pilot test of Apple Laptops to see how they would play
in diverse client environments (problems were similar to those with
Linux).
IBM has give their consultents Linux options so that they can run
LInux on the latpop (as VMWare client, or with Linux Native and
Windows on VMWare).
IBM has made all of the employee related sites "Firefox Friendly" as
well as "Linux friendly", including the travel web site.
Now that IBM is a Microsoft CUSTOMER and NOT a Windows VENDOR, they
are getting very aggressive about getting rid of as much Microsoft as
possible.
It's almost as if IBM is saying "Not another dime to Microsoft".
Ideas and Opinions expressed in this article are strictly my own
personal observations, ideas, and opinions, and may or may not reflect
IBM's official
policies.
Official IBM websites related to Open Source and Linux include:
http://www.ibm.com/linux/
http://www.ibm.com/opensource
|
|
