IBM, Canonical release 'Microsoft-free' virtual Linux deskto

[LinuxMint-4]

IBM, Canonical release 'Microsoft-free' virtual Linux desktop bundle
Another push to break Microsoft's stranglehold on the desktop
By Eric Lai


http://www.computerworld.com/action/art ... src=kc_top


December 4, 2008 (Computerworld) IBM and Canonical Inc. today announced a virtualized software bundle combining Lotus desktop applications running on top of Ubuntu Linux that they say is far cheaper than running Microsoft Corp.'s Office suite on conventional Windows PCs.

It's the latest salvo in IBM's ongoing battle to break Microsoft's stranglehold on the desktop.

According to IBM, the virtual Linux desktop suite could cost, for large companies, as little as $59 per worker. That would include a minimal configuration of $49 for the VERDE desktop virtualization software from a third vendor, Virtual Bridges, $10 for Ubuntu Linux support, and no cost for the Lotus Symphony productivity software.

A full-fledged Linux desktop solution that includes Lotus Notes e-mail, Sametime instant messaging, and other collaboration tools would cost $258 per user, according to IBM.

Customers would also save on labor costs due to reduced maintenance from moving to a server-side solution, said Inna Kuznetsova, director of Linux strategy for IBM, as well as lower hardware costs by extending the lifespan of desktop PCs.

"This is hopefully the first step in multiple announcements to come from us," she said.

In August, IBM said it had reconfigured its Lotus productivity and collaboration software to make it easier to bundle with Linux distributions such as Red Hat, Ubuntu and Novell Inc.'s SUSE Linux.

Microsoft did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

IBM and its partners plan to sell the bundle directly as well as through reseller partners. Asked if IBM planned to host and deliver the software itself as a service, as Microsoft plans to do with Office Web, Kuznetsova said, "we have no announcements at this time, though we will certainly look at this."

Kuznetsova admitted that IBM's calculations do not factor in the potentially expensive cost of migrating users from Microsoft Office and Windows over to the Linux virtual desktop environment, nor the cost of extra server and networking hardware to host the software.

Nor has IBM calculated how the Linux virtual desktop stacks up cost-wise versus the virtual Windows desktop route, using desktop virtualization from VMware Inc., Citrix Systems Inc., or Microsoft, Kuznetsova said.

"We are certainly cheaper than migrating to Office 2007 on Vista," she said.

[Patrick]

This is the future of corporate desktop environments. It makes sense on many levels: cost, power consumption, ease of administration, etc.. The key is whether or not organizations have the people in the right places to realize this and the power to affect a migration.

[eddie]

Sixty dollars per year per station is not bad. "would cost $258 per user", according to IBM. What IBM wants to do is nothing new. I am wondering if that price per station includes the cost of software for the server side. MS is in that range for bulk/site licenses. We use diskless thin clients and what Pat says is true about saving money. Ltsp and TCOS are two ways small businesses can sort of emulate what IBM is wanting to do for you. I worked for a small college for almost ten years doing support. We probably had 1000 or more clients (student and staff machines) at our campus alone. I can not tell you how many hard drives I swapped out. After we changed from Gateway systems of which we had little trouble and then to Dell it was a different playing field all together. As for software maintenance we had pre-built windoze images to load on new systems all at once using norton ghost enterprise and older systems when the hd went bad. We could also do software installs, upgrades, and repairs remotely. At the time left they were using CA that is Computer Associates software management. (Personally I do not care for their software.) My former employer started using thin clients, but they way IT management wanted to set them up was more trouble than fat clients. We also used citrix (and terminal server) to minimize the software installs on clients. Before I left i preached the value of virtual machines. Even with virtual machines you have to create system images. A lot of what ibm wants to do is actual done already in the Microsoft environment. They implemented using virtual machines after I left. I would prefer to have IBM's setup vs Microsoft, but you have to tell it like it is. Actually I would prefer RedHat who has been doing all that already for a long time. Anyway, why I like LTSP so much because all software management is only done on the server as needed. We also have a lamp server and try to use as much web vs local apps as we can. Software management on the client is nil! You never have to mess with diskless thin clients unless they die. Setting up virtual machines is probably a bit much for a really small business, but for medium to large size business is perfect. Many schools actual use ltsp already.