Slashdot Mirror
Linux Ported to IBM's Network Computer Terminals
Bryan Mattern wrote to us with the latest press release from IBM regarding Big Blue and Linux. IBM has now ported
Linux to run on their network terminals - specifically the Network Station Series 2200 and 2800.
I see the article includes ThinkPads in the list of "Linux certified" systems. Can anyone with experience confirm that everything works under Linux on a 'pad? I'd heard that there were problems with the video and modem.
ben_ the technologist and platform agnostic
Linux is the Tao, and the Tao is Linux.
All things are Linux, and Linux is all things.
In the begining, there was the kernel, and the source was good. And the Great Programmer looked down upon the source and saw that it was Open.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
tkDesk looks much like DW2, and has much the same configurability, but it's soo sl-o-o-www.
Anyone for re-implementing DW2, if the Quasar ppl wont port it ?
Like I've always said, get Wine and use the Windows drivers. (Though that really needs some kind of interface to allow Linux apps to route through Wine, if you want to make use of decent software.)
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Well it seems that IBM really Loves Linux. We all now that IBM is more than a company, it's THE company. This is a first step for IBM, let's hope it won't be the last...
Iraq: war to save the U
Even though when this issue is raised it seems to raise some concern, I feel this is another example that Linux was indeed right that Linux's next real dominance may come from being used to run embedded systems and NC's like these terminals. Which can be a great thing for linux as a whole.
(Not that the argument was ever true, but in the minds of the Supremely Rich Ones With All The Corporate Gold, what was spaketh was True, even if not "true".)
Also, I'm going to expect a =SERIOUS= shift in the marketplace, with this announcement. Now, customers will potentially be able to run EXACTLY the same software on their hand-helds and laptops as the backroom boys are running on their mainframes and supercomputers.
(Translation: The bosses might beat the techies in the next Quake 3 tournament.)
But this should FINALLY destroy that pathetically outdated image of Linux as being some backward OS for long-hair rebellious punks who just won't settle into something mature, like Windows 3.1.
If a corporation is going to throw -THIS- much weight behind Linux, maybe - just maybe - some of Linux' critics will get the idea that there's something real there. Something that deserves respect, not contempt, for it's differences.
Maybe, being "weird" in the eyes of the Establishment is no longer quite the penalty it was. Maybe the Establishment has finally grown up. Now to see if the media can do the same.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Just speculation:
These are Thin-Client Terminals which probably means that they will have the Linux ICA Client and Linux will only run as in an embedded system. Fixing an X-Server into them is possible I suppose. But my bet is that these will be marketed for Citrix Metaframe or Microsoft's RDP Client for Terminal Server. As is usual, for these things to normally run as an X Server they have to boot a separate OS from a TFTP server.
At the risk of being moderated down, I'd like to know if IBM will open-source their contributions to Linux. Yes, this sounds like zealotry, but it's not. We must remember that it's not Linux itself that matters; it's the open source philosophy behind it that matters. Even if IBM manages to leverage Linux into the desktop market successfully, if the contributions are not returned to the open source community, this will only hurt us in the long run.
Although I must say, it's really good to see Big Blue contributing to Linux! :-)
mikre he sophia he tou Mikrosophou.
Does anyone else find the fact that a huge company is embracing a [relatively] small open source initiative in a vain attempt to gain market share? It's as though they're going after that 'Built for Windows 95' logo that everyone was seeking when Windows 95 came out. Don't misunderstand, I still believe this to be a good decision, but the reasons behind it may be sinister.
ported Linux to run on their network terminals would suggest that IBM was replacing the (embedded OS, perhaps OS/2? perhaps something else?) on the NCs with Linux.
On the other hand, International Business Machines Corp. (NYSE:IBM - news) on Monday said its line of network computer terminals can now run on the alternative software system Linux could be read to indicate that IBM was providing the server-side software so that rather than requiring NT/AIX to boot up the NCs, one could boot them from a Linux host. The former is more impressive than the latter, as well as being rather a lot more "invasive" of functionality.
Frankly, I'd be happy enough having the Network Stations run something embedded and tiny and just plain have lots of support for them to connect to Linux boxen.
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
I think that the OSS community (if in the form of an open source scientific org) would have developed the atom bomb if given the chance and resources. The only difference would be that they would have let everyone else know how to do it and do it well . . .
That's a bit scary to me.
Linux is going down unless it gets some Winmodem support... BUILT IN! Win2k is winning...ahah...
WinModems based on the Lucent chipset work in Linux, with a proprietary driver from Lucent themselves. The WinModem in my Toshiba notebook works without a problem.
It is only a matter of time before other manufacturers will release drivers, and before open-source drivers will appear.
--
bgphints - internet routing news, hints and ti
Um, can you name a single company that didn't contribute to the war effort during WWII? There was almost no civilian manufactuing during those years. Every company had to contribute or have their operations taken over by the government. And that was sixty years ago, how is this even remotely relevent?
Disclaimer: I work for Big Blue, although not on Linux, alas.
The IBM Netstation we have currently runs NetBSD (1.3 I believe) and had the most solid Netscape I have ever seen on a Unix(like) system - even Java applets worked!
I hope the new Linux-based netstation software has an equally good browser.
Would it be too much to ask for IBM to make this version of Netscape more generally available...Please...
This will make it easier for the average non-geek to latch on to a single aspect of Linux and keep it in their brain. It doesn't have to be informative just something that will stick. I mean look at the rest:-
SUN - THe network is the Computer.
- The dot in dot com.
Translation: INTERNET
IBM - E-SERVICE and E-BUSINESS
Translation: BUSINESS
MICRO$OFT - Where do want to go today?
Translation: We'll do EVERYTHING for you {aka MONOPOLY}
Coke - The real thing.
Translation: Coke is GOOD for you. Pepsi is NOT. etc. etc.
They all emphasize an aspect that they want people to remember. I believe its called branding. These slogans create powerful mental associations in the public mind and Linux cannot afford to ignore this. Linux cannot afford to be called the "alternative software system" when it has reached this level. I propose that we emphasize STABILITY and OPENNESS, both proven qualities of LINUX. Now to summarize that in a few catchy words.
Any ideas?
The only reason all cover-ups appear to fail is that you never hear about the ones that succeed.
Most IBM NCs already run an open source OS, specifically NetBSD. NCOS is just a hacked version of NetBSD 1.3.2
Rumor has it that some people have "real" NetBSD running on IBM NCs but I haven't checked.
It isn't much stated, but NetBSD is located inside of literally hundreds of thousands of deployed network computers, and millions of embedded device applications.
Modems will be obselete in a couple of years now, and Linux is already moving toward owning the always-on always-connected internet appliance arena.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
A lot of high level managers and working groups understand that open source and open standards make for a level playing field where everyone can compete fairly, but there's a huge amount of corporate inertia, too, so it'll take a while before all the IBM divisions fall into line.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
You can get the weapons grade plutonium from your local boy scouts or other terrorist organization, generally in a dust form. You can mold it into a sphere with play-doh and use TNT to bring it all together. Keep the left-over plutonium in a lead-lined safe. If you don't have a lead-lined safe, and old coffee can will do. It makes a great mosquito repellent, too.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
This doesn't change anything for Microsoft. The NCs already were not running Microsoft OSes. They were running NetBSD. This is just a shift towards the Linux "brand" of open source.
Microsoft HAS put pressure on various NC makers in the past, of course -- see the famous pressure they brought to bear to destroy the DEC DNARD -- but in general, one should keep in mind that NC OS is NetBSD, and that it isn't likely that NC is going to start shipping Win CE or some crap like that instead.
I think this will be rather productive - Well, depends on your needs. For me, it's the greatest news since hot chocolate became widely available. We just bought ~100 IBM NetStations, to run an in-house developed program. The problem is, we had no way of running it on the machines - they were just X terminals. Damn good X terminals. But for every 10 machines, we needed a 192MB-RAM P-III server. Now (I hope), we will be able to use our old trusty 486 as a file server, and run the apps on the Netstation itself!
My modem appears to have died and since I'm too far from a CO for DSL and the only cable modem available is one way (i.e. it requires a phone line and regular modem for the uplink) I'm shopping for a new modem. There are some expensive modems out there, but I was planning to buy a $25 Archtek modem from www.aberdeeninc.com. The description doesn't contain anything to indicate that it might be a winmodem. Is there really any reason to spend more money on a modem?
Hoo-boy! We have a Real Problem here, don't we?? Winmodems are going to take over the industry!
Just what we need! Next thing you know, they'll start developing CD-ROM devices with rim drives, just like those little cheap turntables us old folks got stuck with when we were kids.
Just think! Soon, Linux will have modems that smoke our CPU's in no time! Bet that'll make Intel happy!
--------------Rev. C.C.Chips---------------- For the real truth, visit
I was testing IBM's thin client to NT a few years ago when I realised that it was really using the X protocool underneeth and I could connect it to any box in our building that was running some type of xdm - including Linux.
- Name recognition itself is worth many millions of dollars. If you have name recognition, your marketing department is halfway home.
- When two very similar entities compete for the same economic niche, one will eventually dominate. Coyotes drive out foxes.
Linux is the dominant Unix operating system. A very similar Unix system has no chance in that niche (see second point above). Why give up millions of dollars in mindshare. You'd have to pay for a quarter-billion dollars in SuperBowl advertisements to even hope to approach Linux mindshare. That's the true free gift that IBM is getting. Other than Windows, the most likely challenge to Linux is from systems that differentiate themselves radically--BeOS for instance.I hate to burst your bubble, but the BSDs had their chance. The world has changed since the PDP11 days of yore. If you want a scapegoat don't blame Linux. Blame Kurt McKusick of CSRG who refused to port BSD to the Intel architecture, despite requests dating back to 1986. By the time Jolitz had something to offer, six years had gone by and Linux was already on the rise. The BSD CSRG died shortly thereafter.
Let that be a lesson in elitism and snobbery. Isn't it ironic that McKusick's Moto 68000 is obsolete but the the Intel architecture which he spurned now owns 90% of the CPU market.
http://www.close.u-net.com
--
Mikael "MC" Cardell
Defender of the Sacred GNU, Temple of the Moby Hack
ICBM: N 58.414904, E 15.610734
IBM is _really_ starting to bug me with this crap. Their support of linux has thus far been mostly just hype. I had linux running on one of these NCs _months_ ago - all you have to do is export your display back to it and run a window manager - there is no 'porting' required.
The NC runs X windows natively. It does not run linux. It will not run linux. It can DISPLAY linux, just like any other Unix box with X11>R5 running.
They're just supplying a steady stream of press releases to the public to make ppl think they actually give a shit.
What really happens is that one person in the company is bored and ports something over, then, after keeping it secret for a long time, getting into a fight with his/her manager, and pulling strings to keep the linux box around, someone in marketing hears about it and says, woah, wait, Linux is now a buzzword.
At least, that's what happened to me, and everyone else at IGS when I worked there.
--
blue
i browse at -1 because they're funnier than you are.
The current incarnations of NetStations are not just X-terminals - in fact - as mentioned elsewhere they are running NetBSD. So theoretically an externally developed program can be run on the box. The point is that the model of an open NC is not really supported at this time - at least in policy if not in practice. This seems to be changing, but the fact that Linux is now on the box doesn't really change the situation greatly.
I can validate that the announcement was not to indicate that X server support would allow the DISPLAY to be set, but rather that the boot code has been modified so that the Linux kernel has been ported and tested on the NC. Perhaps IBM doesn't give a shit about Open Source but they do care when customers ask for Linux and it makes sense to deliver on the platform. IBM has been considering moving the NCs to Linux for at least 2 years, but until the lawyers finally got out of the way there could be no move towards Linux.
Hold on here. It doesn't matter if the hardware is proprietary. Either it's documented or it isn't. If it is, you can get the docs too. If it's not, somebody reverse-engineered something, and you can do it too.
How is the Linux monopoly going to be a change from the Windows monopoly?
The words "Open Source" do mean something, you know.
The world's most portable OS: http://www.netbsd.org.
Or BSDI, or FreeBSD, or OpenBSD, or ...
Linux doesn't have that kind of nonsense, and IMHO that's a major factor why everybody's talking about Linux and the BSDs are ... let's say, somewhat less popular.
Speaking as someone who works at IBM, all future IBM NCs will be shipping with Linux. Despite the the advocacy posts here, NetBSD has been very problematic for us at IBM. The main reason we are moving to Linux is increased flexibility, and standardization of development tools. What most advocates miss (whatever their stripe) is that we are in business to make money. Cutting internal support costs is ``job one''.