IBM laptop

[Christopher Browne]

On 1/15/06, Evan Leibovitch <evan-ieNeDk6JonTYtjvyW6yDsg at public.gmane.org> wrote:
> Christopher Browne wrote:
>
> >Well, the modern problem iis that IBM no longer sells laptops.
> >
> >They sold the laptop division (possibly the whole "PC Division") to Lenovo.
> >
> >That doesn't bode particularly well for Linux support;
> >
> I'm not sure why you would say this. Upon what is based the assumption
> that Lenovo is less interested in Linux than IBM?

This is based on the fact that Lenovo has bought what was the most
Microsoft-centred division of IBM.

A major reason for the failure of OS/2, back in the day, was the fact
that you couldn't buy machines from the PC Division with OS/2.  The PC
Division in effect was more tied to Microsoft than it was to the rest
of IBM.

One of the interesting factors about the sale of the PC Division to
Lenovo is that it more or less eliminates, at one swell foop, the
major ties between IBM and both Microsoft and Intel.

> IBM never publicly offered a desktop or laptop PC without the Microsoft
> tax; its high-end models wouldn't even give you the option of the
> less-expensive XP Home. Most specialized Thinkpad support for Linux was
> developed by the community, not IBM. Significant proprietary software
> add-ons such as the "Access IBM" help system were never made available
> for Linux. My support calls were always met by polite reminders that
> official Linux Thinkpad support has never existed. Arguably community
> interest due to the large market share of Thinkpads has as much to do
> with their level of Linux support as anything IBM did. I subscribe to
> the linux-on-thinkpad mailing list; the only postings from ibm.com are
> "so-and-so is out of the office".

Exactly.  That's the "PC Division" thing talking to you.

I had a neighbour a few years ago who was a technical sales rep for
the PC Division; the above was entirely consistent with his reaction
to use of non-MSFT systems on their hardware.  At the time, there
wasn't "Linux support" elsewhere in IBM that would make it the least
bit meaningful to debate Linux.  I instead debated the merits of OS/2,
and got precisely the same lack of interest.

> OTOH, Lenovo's primary market (before buying the IBM PC biz) and home
> base is a country in which a third of the desktops already run Linux,
> and in which Linux cellphones are not uncommon.
>
> Given these observations, I am curious to know specifically what
> existing Linux support is considered to be at risk due to the Lenovo
> acquisition. If anything, I see a potential of _increased_ support.
> Maybe a Linux pre-load or at least a no-OS option. Heck, *any* official
> support is increased support.
>
> IBM's done many great things for Linux. But that's no reason to engage
> in FUD about Lenovo.

Lenovo's two biggest business partners that fall out of where they
source "materials" are:
 a) Intel
 b) Microsoft

And the staff that they drew from IBM are the "PC Division" folk that
were always more loyal to their two business partners than to the rest
of IBM.

Lenovo no longer has the rest of IBM to push them to do the minimal
things that they were doing to "support" Linux.  The PC Division
wasn't writing drivers or any such thing; all they did as "Linux
support" was to list particular laptops that are (perhaps only
partially) supported by one Linux distribution or another.

Go to the Lenovo web site and try to find Linux support...  There is
something relevant, but you won't find it by searching the Lenovo site
for it.

For them to be considered "supportive of Linux" requires a pretty big
organizational change that I don't see happening soon.
--
http://www3.sympatico.ca/cbbrowne/linux.html
"The true  measure of a  man is how he treats  someone who can  do him
absolutely no good." -- Samuel Johnson, lexicographer (1709-1784)
--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://tlug.ss.org
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://tlug.ss.org/subscribe.shtml