5 ms·
> IBM isn't a successful technology company with a proven record building good products. Whoa, what? Sure, some of their achievements are in their past, but t
by djrogers 9y ago
> IBM isn't a successful technology company with a proven record building good products.
Whoa, what? Sure, some of their achievements are in their past, but that claim really overlooks a ton of history.
- mannykannot 9y agoIn this context, the only history that matters is that which speaks to its current ability to good work. I don't follow IBM closely, but the impression I get is that its current reputation is spotty.
- djrogers 9y agoOnly huge failures make the news. CBC doesn’t run a feature on a successful software implementation.
- goodroot 9y agoYou're right. That was too sweeping, in fairness. I've edited in 'good software products'; that record is categorically abysmal. IBM makes amazing mainframes and physical technical systems, and conducts some fascinating cutting-edge research, and even built really effective punch-card machines for use within Nazi concentration camps. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust)
- lulmerchant 9y agoIf only they could run a payroll system as effectively as they can run a genocide.
- ugh123 9y agoYou're mistakenly conflating IBM's consulting business with the rest of their current technology, both hardware and software.
- flukus 9y agoNo, IBM has conflated their consulting service with the rest of their technology by running under the same brand name. If they want the benefits of sharing that brand between operations then they deserve the negatives that come along with it.
- aisofteng 9y agoNo, IBM has not done that. IBM Global Business Services and IBM Global Technical are their own business units.
- SFjulie1 9y agoIBM has branch prediction (and Out of Order Execution) in their mainframe architecture: the Z series. I strongly suspect they are subject to a variant of spectre meltdown. Yet, no news were made public on the topic. A tinge of "same cause produces the same effects" makes me think that they are immune to the scrutiny of security research on the topic because there is a tad of security by obfuscation, and secondly university and google don't care about mainframe. It does not mean attackers don't care about the backbone of banking system.
- forgotmysn 9y agoAgreed, IBM has a long track record. Their recent history doesn't have a lot of W's though.
- theossuary 9y agoThat's not true, IBM has way more Ws than Ls over it's history. Now the last few decades, that's a different story I think.
- forgotmysn 9y agoThat's exactly what I said.
- eeks 9y agoYou must not read much technological news. From the top of my head, I can cite Quantum, Photonics, the Neurosynaptic chip, the 5nm chip fab process, POWER and Z, ...
- beambot 9y agoDepends on the time-scale you're using...
- Nomentatus 9y agoIt's only a slight exaggeration to say that they're living on a reputation they built doing everything except what they're trying to sell now. When their other ships were going down, they shifted to a growing area of demand, not an area of their expertise. A brand shell game.