professional writing at purdue university

Navigation

User login

Who's online

There are currently 0 users and 4 guests online.

 











 

 

IBM and Novell: Investing in an Open Source Future

David Blakesley @ Tue, 08/24/2004 - 11:05

Project:OSDDP Project
Component:White Paper
Category:task
Priority:normal
Assigned:jniz
Status:active

Description

How have companies invested in Open Source Development? What in particular have IBM and Novell done? Why? Format: Case Analysis or White Paper. --DB

Updates

#1 submitted by Luhlemey on Mon, 09/13/2004 - 19:53
Assigned to:» Luhlemey

We accept this assignment! Abrahm, CHristina, and Lacey will take on this challenge!!!!!

#2 submitted by persohna on Fri, 09/24/2004 - 19:26
Attachment:white_paper_full_rough_draft.doc (61 KB)

Here is our rough draft of the white paper and the bibliography.

#3 submitted by persohna on Fri, 09/24/2004 - 19:26
Attachment:white-paper-rough-bibliography.doc (33.5 KB)

here is the white paper bibliography

#4 submitted by persohna on Fri, 09/24/2004 - 19:32
Attachment:white-paper-executive-summary.doc (25 KB)

Here is the executive summary of our white paper.

#5 submitted by persohna on Fri, 09/24/2004 - 19:39

Here are our concerns. Please give us some feedback.

1. Does the white paper clearly explain how these companies are investing in open source. Could someone who is not real familiar with the subject be able to understand our information?

2. Do you feel that the body should be re-arranged? (E.g. The "why" portion of the paper before the "how" and "results" section.)

3. Did we do a good job citing? (Is there too much? Were they cited in the correct manner? We were going for MLA style.)

#6 submitted by persohna on Fri, 09/24/2004 - 19:50
Attachment:white_paper_full_rough_draft_0.doc (61 KB)

Executive Summary

The main purpose for writing this white paper is to familiarize the students in the English 420 classes here at Purdue University on Open Source, and more importantly the development of Novell and IBM using this technology. We will talk about how these two companies are investing in an Open source future not just about how they separately invest but our purpose is more so how they are investing for the good of the online community. We will describe how they are investing but more importantly why they are investing in this technology. This appears to be a winning solution to a problem, which one might not even realize is a problem. Which are the worst types of tribulations one can encounter. We will closely look at: the importance of having choices and options in the twenty first century, no / low cost software, security / reliability, network compatibility, and custom applications just to name a few. We will speak on business acquisitions and deals which continue to take Open Source Technology to the next level of competition. In conclusion Open Source is the future and we all need to realize how it can change the computing world as we know it. The time is now to learn about this technology which appears to be a good business investment for these two companies. Why, because there are two main types of people in this world, people who make things happen and people who watch things happen, we need to be actively involved in the technology that will change our computing experience as we know it.

#7 submitted by cel4145 on Sun, 09/26/2004 - 04:03
Attachment:ibmandnovell.pdf (110.72 KB)

I've attached a draft with suggestions.

#8 submitted by persohna on Mon, 10/04/2004 - 19:07
Attachment:whitepaper--2nddraft.doc (66 KB)

Executive Summary
The main purpose for writing this white paper is to familiarize the students in the English 420 classes here at Purdue University on Open Source, and more importantly the development of Novell and IBM using this technology.
This paper will discuss how these two companies are investing in an Open source future not just about how they separately invest but why they are investing. The paper will closely look at: the importance of having choices and options, no / low cost software, security / reliability, network compatibility, and custom applications just to name a few. It will discuss and analyze business acquisitions and deals within the two companies that pertain to Open Source Technology.
In conclusion Open Source is the future and we all need to realize how it can change the computing world as we know it. The time is now to learn about this technology which appears to be a good business investment for these two companies. Consumers today need to be actively involved in the technology and the products we spend our hard earned money on.

#9 submitted by cel4145 on Tue, 10/05/2004 - 16:03
Attachment:novell_ibm_2nddraft.pdf (109.73 KB)

I've attached a draft with some feedback.

#10 submitted by persohna on Fri, 10/15/2004 - 19:38
Attachment:whitepaper--4thdraft-revised.htm (22.07 KB)

Executive Summary

The reason for this report is to introduce how the companies Novell and IBM are investing in Open Source technology. These companies have decided to invest in open source because: Linux has quality and potential to be equal to commercial alternatives, Open source adds competition between other vendors, it can be customized to fit specific needs, security features, and it cuts cost which is an added incentive.

The two companies are showing their dedication by donating funds and focusing on improving Open Source technology. IBM is investing in open source by making Linux the primary operating system on their servers and giving software codes to Apache Software. Novell has contributed by purchasing XIMIAN and SUSE. They also plan to provide customer support to help familiarize customers with open source technology.

#11 submitted by lindsay116 on Fri, 10/15/2004 - 20:11
Attachment:revision for other group.doc (34 KB)

Here is the section of your paper I proofread for you. It is the section on IBM's committment to open source. Hope it's helpful.

#12 submitted by ak8 on Fri, 10/15/2004 - 20:12
Attachment:edited novell portion.doc (29 KB)

changes made in the attachment. i used blue colored font so you could easily spot them.

#13 submitted by melissa on Fri, 10/15/2004 - 20:15
Attachment:revision.doc (32.5 KB)

I attached a copy of the introduction section with revisions...good job!

#14 submitted by persohna on Sun, 10/17/2004 - 22:00
Attachment:IBM and Novell Whitepaper.htm (20.75 KB)

Here is the final version of our white paper.

#15 submitted by persohna on Sun, 10/17/2004 - 22:00
Attachment:IBM and Novell Whitepaper.pdf.pdf (38.68 KB)

Here is the PDF version of our white paper.

#16 submitted by persohna on Tue, 11/16/2004 - 20:40
Attachment:whitepaper_0.htm (21.22 KB)

Here is our re-submission of the white paper project.

#17 submitted by David Blakesley on Thu, 12/02/2004 - 14:51
Status:active» published
#18 submitted by Anonymous on Thu, 12/16/2004 - 15:02
Status:published» needs update
#19 submitted by afinley on Thu, 02/03/2005 - 17:39
Category:tasks»
Assigned to:Luhlemey» afinley
Status:needs update» active

Andrew Finley, Todd Colligan, Jeff Nizynski and Kevin Pitterle accept this white paper.

#20 submitted by afinley on Tue, 02/08/2005 - 13:41
Attachment:IBM-Novell_0.doc (58 KB)

The last revision in Word format (since the HTML only works in IE).

#21 submitted by ToBerGan on Thu, 02/10/2005 - 16:36
Assigned to:afinley» ToBerGan
Attachment:WORKS CITEDrev01.doc (16.5 KB)
#22 submitted by jniz on Thu, 02/17/2005 - 15:48
Category:» tasks
Assigned to:ToBerGan» jniz
Attachment:IBM-Novell_roughdraft.doc (69 KB)

Here is the rough draft of our white paper.

#23 submitted by afinley on Thu, 02/17/2005 - 17:06
Title:IBM and Novell: Investing in an Open Source Future» Ideas for revision

Ideas

Possible section on IBM and Novell working together on Linux-related development. Incorporating this may involve a reworking of the sections to include the two companies working together as well as independently.

The introduction, conclusion and summary need to be rewritten according to the changes we make to our paper. As of now, they are untouched from the previous version.

Questions to Respondent

Do the headings and subheadings seem logical and helpful? Should they be redone so that a certain topic would be discussed in one section rather than split? For example, “Contributions to the Open Source Community” being a major section with “IBM” and “Novell” subsections as opposed to the current “IBM” and “Novell” primary sections.

#24 submitted by ToBerGan on Tue, 03/01/2005 - 11:58
Title:Ideas for revision» Rough Draft #2
Assigned to:jniz» ToBerGan
Attachment:IBM-Novell_roughdraft06.doc (62.5 KB)

We revised our first rough draft and edited out about 700 words. The word count is now 3,642.

#25 submitted by cel4145 on Thu, 03/03/2005 - 00:03
Attachment:ibmnovell2.pdf (101.83 KB)

Attached is a pdf with some feedback.

#26 submitted by jniz on Thu, 03/10/2005 - 16:17
Assigned to:ToBerGan» jniz
Attachment:ibmnovellfinal.html (29.24 KB)

Here is the final version in HTML format.

#27 submitted by jniz on Thu, 03/10/2005 - 16:18
Attachment:ibmnovellfinal.pdf (31.48 KB)

This is the final version in PDF format.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
 
Tue, 03/01/2005 - 17:56
 

hey, I want to start off by saying that the paper is coming along quite well. The executive summary does a great job of giving a overview of the whole document. One way that i can think of to knock a lot fo words off is to completely rethink the layout of the document. you could combine each topic for example, "A commitment to open source" instead of splitting it into IBM and Novell. You can also try rewriting entire sentences to cut down on words and be more precise. Although overall i think the document is coming along very well.

login to post comments
 
Tue, 03/01/2005 - 16:23
 

“Sam Palmisano, Chairman and CEO of IBM Corporation has declared that we have entered an 'On Demand' era, where companies the employ open IT tools to stay flexible and adaptive will have an edge over those that are rigid and inflexible.” (IBM)…….make sure you watch out for grammar errors. The computer will do spell check but if you spell the word right yet its in the wrong place it wont pick it up. Just make sure that each person reads and edits the whole paper.

Another thing you need to watch out or is different writing styles. I don’t know if its because some parts of more technical then other or just because different people wrote different sections. Either way it would be a good idea to have each person edit the parts they didn’t write just to make sure there is a consistent voice throughout the entire paper.

Make sure you watch out for headings as well. I’m not going to put the example in this because so far it has made me lose the paper 3 times. But I did notice that some of the headings for sections are bigger then other ones.

Overall I think the paper is very informative and well written. Once again just make sure you each proof read and find a common voice that is present throughout the paper.

login to post comments
 
Sun, 02/20/2005 - 21:26
 
  • Once I got in past the first few sections that are largely from the original paper, I like what I'm reading here. I can see how you have updated the paper with some good research.
  • In revising, you will probably want to work on seeing if you can paraphrase more of the quotes in the text or summarize it down (as you do some cutting work). It seems to me that the original paper you were drawing from is quote heavy, so it's a good thing to work on.
  • Be careful of trusting everything you read in the original draft you are working from. For example,
    Open source's source code, made available to the public for free, can be copied, modified, and redistributed.
    is incorrect.
  • I think as far headings and subheadings, you'll have to look and see whether or not you can break some of the longer sections into subsections with subheadings. This, to me, was something that worked well in the original HTML version (see this example).
  • Adding a section about where Novell and IBM are cooperating, showing their interconnection, would be a good addition to this paper.
login to post comments
 
Mon, 02/28/2005 - 22:57
 

We will definitely work on paraphrasing some of our quotes, and i agree about breaking up some of the longer sections, we have already begun to discuss ways we can do that, and possibly rearrange some information.

login to post comments
 
Thu, 02/17/2005 - 16:18
 

It might be a little more informative in the ES if you use that paragraph to describe the generalities of the paper and not get too concerned with the specifics.

I was wondering if this paper made proper use of quotes from sources. There seems to be a large amount of these and since I know very little about this subject, I cannot comment about whether they are used properly. A good idea would be to summerize any quotes that contain just facts, and use quotes for the opinons of people.

The conclusions paragraph could be extended a little to be more comprehensive of the entire paper. Try to summarize the entire paper in this paragraph.

This paper is very technical and if I knew what a lot of the words meant it would probably be very easy to read. Looks like a good amount of research went into this paper. good job.

login to post comments
 
Tue, 02/22/2005 - 16:45
 

Thanks for the comments on our white paper. I had not really noticed the details in the executive summary that definately seem like they shouldn't be there. We realized that there were a lot of quotes in our paper and were going to work on adjusting that. Again, thanks for the feedback.

login to post comments
 
Tue, 02/22/2005 - 16:44
 

I agree with you that we need to work on cutting down the quotes and replacing them with paraphrases. The paper reads uneasily when every other sentence is a quote.

login to post comments
 
Fri, 10/15/2004 - 19:41
 

Here are some concerns for our revised white paper:

1. Does the paper seem clear and concise?
2. Is it easy to understand?

login to post comments
 
Mon, 10/04/2004 - 20:13
 

Your intro still seems to push the fact that open source is the best alternative. However, the reasons for this bias are more clearly explaned in this draft.
"Now that you have an idea what open source is" this phrase you might want to revise. It seems that talking to a particular person would not be the best option. Try to teach the reader by stating facts rather than addressing a specific "you".

You're headings are much better. They seem to be more specific and with smaller paragraphs it is easier to find information.

The "How" section is good. The paragraphs explain only one topic at a time which makes it easier to separate the different types of software and programs you are discussing.

You might want to try to keep all the paragraphs talking about different programs that were implemented together. For example, DB2 should be moved up to the area where you discuss Sercure Mailer.

This looks much better! Keep up the good work!

login to post comments
 
Mon, 10/04/2004 - 20:02
 

I tried to put a definition of Open Source in my own words, I do realize there is a grammatical error, but besides that is it easy to understand and correct???
I wrote the section involving "why move to open source". Since last time I edited out a lot of facts that I had listed before. I also tried to add in some comments instead of citing so much. Is it still to much information on WHY they are moving to open source? And is the correct information included still. I had a difficult time figuring out what parts to leave in and what to take out.

I also changed the format. Instead of putting a heading on each section like "choice", "security", etc I just did paragraphs. Should I go back to labeling the sections of are the paragraphs good engouh?

login to post comments
 
Mon, 10/04/2004 - 19:58
 

Should the ES be longer? I wasn't sure I thought the original one was to long. I tried to make it more precise and get to the point. Should the info about os, ibm, and novell be moved to the ES or should it remain in the intro. I also am concerned about the conclusion did it need some more info or was it just right I kinda thought the section before the conclusion did a pretty good job of summing the info up.

login to post comments
 
Mon, 10/04/2004 - 20:09
 

I think maybe you should put more info about Novell and IBM in the executive summary, because I think the executive summary is usually the first thing people read and it should give a summary of everything your paper says, not just a preview of what your paper will be about. So I would put more specific information in this section about os, IBM, and novell and make the intro more of a general preview.

login to post comments
 
Mon, 10/04/2004 - 19:53
 

Here are some concerns for our 2nd draft:

1. Does the "how" section clearly explain the information. Are there any parts that are too technical and need to be explained further?

2. Does the paper seem non-biased, not favoring or condemning the investment of open source by IBM and Novell?

login to post comments
 
ak8
Mon, 10/04/2004 - 20:13
 

I really like the format you are using now. It is very clear and concise. The format that you used where you state the definition, then saying why and then finally how IBM is applying is a good idea. You didn't go to in depth with the def. but you explained it well enough for readers to understand. The information is a little biased but overall this is a really good draft.

login to post comments
 
Fri, 09/24/2004 - 20:16
 

Exectutive Summary: This appears to be biased toward the side of using open source. I got the impression that white papers usually contain both sides of an issue. The last couple sentences actually seem like an ad for open source telling all the wonderful things it can be used for.

It might be a good idea to separate some of your main points under headings. The paper seems to flow fairly well, but I have trouble following the different companies you are talking about and which pieces of software they work with or are accumulating.

For example: a section on How open source is being supported and by whom or what the benefits of open source are according to Novell or another company

You could even separate the OSI section because there is a lot of information here. Even though OSI works with Novell and IBM, they should not be included under that title.

As far as using sources in your paper, they are cited correctly and there is an abundance of quotes and facts. In the first section on IBM and Novell, there may be too many one after the other. Try to even out your use of quotes so that it is not too cluttered.

The second half of the paper is separated more evenly talking about the main benefits of open source. Are there any things that aren't so great about it?

I like the conclusion. You reiterate most of the key points of your paper.

Great job!

login to post comments
 
Mon, 09/27/2004 - 20:06
 

I was not sure how to construct the executive summmary seeing as how this is the first time composing one but I am going to re word and re draft the summary and try to remove the bias. I was just under the impresssion that I was supposed to be talking about them investing in open source so I felt that focusing on the benefits was a good idea. I plan on looking at some of the other groups es and seeing maybe how I can revise ours. I think the conclusion went okay but maybe I need to stop trying to talk for the group and just come with the info.

login to post comments
 
ak8
Fri, 09/24/2004 - 20:14
 

overall you got a pretty good start on you rough draft. you should make the executive summary a little more captivating so that readers will feel motivated to read your paper. you did a really good job at explaining how IBM and Novell are going about their transition to open source.

in regards to your concern about citation, there is a little to much citation. in paragraphs where you use the same article (Woodie) it is only necessary to cite it once. the format is still a little rough at this point but that will be smoothed out over the next couple of drafts. great job on your paper so far.

login to post comments
 
Mon, 09/27/2004 - 20:11
 

Could you give suggestions to how the es could be made more captivating?

login to post comments
 
Mon, 09/27/2004 - 19:56
 

Thanks for your comment on the citation. We were concerned about whether or not we used too much. It really does seem to make the paper seem cluttered. We will try to paraphrase more not only to clear up the quotes, but to help the reader better understand what the paper is saying.

login to post comments
 
Fri, 09/24/2004 - 20:10
 

One thing I noticed is that for people who don't really know anything about open source, the beginning and the section where you describe IBM and Novell might be kind of confusing because there's no definition of what open source actually is.

The definition comes later in the paper, but I think it would be a lot more effective to move the "what is open source" section to the very beginning of your paper. Then readers who don't know a lot about the subject area will have a better starting point. Another idea would be to expand on the quote you have that describes open source. It's a really good quote, but it might be good to also put it in your own words after the quote, that anyone would understand.

I also think the whole section on why to use open source would be better at the beginning, right after the definition of open source. The part where you are describing what IBM and Novell have done is kind of confusing because it sounds pretty technical, but if you had all the background info first, such as what open source is and its benefits, then the actions Novell and IBM have taken would make more sense, I think.

I really like the section at the end that asks if open source is paying off. It's very persuasive and I think it definitely ends the paper on a high note and will convince many readers that open source is a good idea.

login to post comments
 
Mon, 09/27/2004 - 19:53
 

We definitely questioned before posting the paper whether or not we should move the definiton of open source to the beginning. We will work on clearing up the technical language by putting it more into our own words to help readers who don't necessarily have extensive background knowledge of the open source issue understand the information more easily.

login to post comments