On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 11:58 AM, Jim Oberholtzer
<midrangel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
IBM recognizes the enormity of the open source moves it's making, but you
have to remember that IBM has never been the marketing machine Microsoft
and other outfits are, even if the other other outfits are spewing
garbage. IBM's approach (right or wrong) is to announce and advertise, not
hype the crap out of vaporware then not deliver. (AKA Microsoft)
Jim, I respectfully disagree with your characterization of both IBM
and "other outfits, especially Microsoft".
IBM *has* been a powerful marketing machine in the past. I'm thinking
mainly of the PC days and into PS/2 and OS/2. More recently, it has
hyped itself quite a bit during some Olympics, and it's got the
Jeopardy stunt with Watson. And Deep Blue for chess geeks (which I was
for a time).
You did say that IBM "advertises" and I guess you are trying to
somehow make a distinction between "advertising" and "hype". Then what
*real world* benefit has Watson provided? If we're being honest, it's
a halo for IBM's brand, not an actual, applicable technology for IT at
large. At least not yet.
Almost everyone, certainly including both IBM and Microsoft, has
failed to deliver in some way or another. Please shake this sweeping
anti-Microsoft attitude. It's not helpful. It's not productive. It's
insular and only serves to alienate those who are not already in your
church.
Microsoft has delivered quite well on a number of products. From a
developer's perspective in particular, the .NET platform, languages,
and tools are all considered first-rate by folks who have kept an open
mind and given them an honest chance. User satisfaction of C# and
Visual Studio are slightly better than for Java and Eclipse (or insert
any other Java-centric tools).
And sorry for the diversion, but getting back to the point:
Even if we accept the claim that "IBM advertises", then what I'm
saying is: I'm surprised they aren't advertising their open source
initiative more. Those announcement letters are not advertising. Those
announcement letters are like filing a document with the clerk at city
hall and expecting the town's whole population to suddenly be aware of
it.
I get that real advertising is expensive. So if IBM's rationale for
not advertising is "it's too expensive", then I completely understand
that. It's my personal opinion that IBM's moves in open source warrant
more advertising than IBM currently seems to be devoting to it.
John Y.
midrange.com
