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.

Comments

Re:one question:

[jd]

Linux is.

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.

Re:Heh...

[jd]

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.)

Expect Microsoft retalliation

[jd]

Their biggest FUD-line has always been that Linux is unsupported. With IBM -really- piling on the press announcements and support, this is seriously undermining that argument.

(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But this should FINALLY destroy that pathetically outdated image of Linux as being some backward OS for long-hair rebellious punks who just won't settle into something mature, like Windows 3.1.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.

Re:Expect Microsoft retalliation

[cjs]

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.

What do you mean, `now'? This has been the case for a while now. For the last few years IBM has been running NetBSD on these same NCs that we've been talking about, and NASA has been running NetBSD a AlphaServer 8400s with gigabytes of memory and terrabytes of disk. And now you can run NetBSD on a handheld.

I'm finding this whole Linux revolution rather depressing, now, because it is, quite obviously just a Linux revolution and not an open source revolution at all. IBM built its NCs around an open-source OS and has been providing full support for it for a couple of years now, but nobody (except for a handful of NetBSD developers) cares. They now are either ditching it for Linux or are porting Linux just for show and not to use, either of which is just a fashon statement. And I don't think Linux users really care that IBM couldn't give a damn about open source so long as IBM keeps mentioning the word `Linux' in their press releases.

It seems to me that various interests, including many in the Open Source community itself, are pushing things toward homogenity rather than diversity. I suppose this shouldn't come as too much of a surprise since that tendency has been there from the start: Richard Stallman, for example, makes it quite clear that he wants to see a world where nobody would ever use or write non-GNU software because there would already be a GNU package that is better.

I'm starting to suspect that one day indeed Linux will rule the world. Unfortunately, things won't change much for those who are not part of the ruling class, old or new. Instead of a large company like HP or MS getting special licencing terms for Sun's JVM or Digital's proprietary boot code for the Alpha, it will be Linux, but the other open source operating systems will still be left out. (I use these examples because they have already happened.) And I'll be using Linux instead of Windows, not because it's the OS I want to use, but because I can get drivers for proprietary hardware for it when I can't get enough information to write that driver for my preferred OS. How is the Linux monopoly going to be a change from the Windows monopoly?

cjs

Re:Expect Microsoft retalliation

[ccchips]

I don't want to make a point-by-point reply to this, because I like the BSD's. In fact, I've been looking 'round for that book on BSD kernel internals because it's such a good, technical book. Unfortunately, though, the *BSD people have made some political mistakes that may have given them this very problem.

Several years ago, I tried FreeBSD 2.0 or so on an old 486/50 I had been using to test various free OS's. I got my copy from Walnut Creek, with the nice book. Sadly, I discovered that the Promise IDE controller in my box wasn't supported, or there was some other problem with IDE support. I wrote about it to Walnut Creek, as they suggested I do, and got a mail back from one of the BSD team. The mail said, basically, "we ain't interested in fixing it. Our OS is for big servers with SCSI controllers, and we don't support "broken" hardware. Send the stuff back to Walnut Creek, and use Linux, because they support every piece of junk out there, no matter how badly it mangles the rest of the system."

Now, I'm not saying the *BSD people should abandon their goals. But I am saying that they need to establish a clear public image as a very high-quality OS for use by seriously-committed computer professionals. Either that, or they should seriously consider scaling their OS to include, at the bottom end, the same level of "junk hardware" support that Linux has.

Maybe it's too late to consider these issues now, but I hope not. I'd hate to see a super-excellent OS go away just because of politics and ideals.

Re:Expect Microsoft retalliation

[Azog]

You have some good points regarding BSD and IBM.

But really, you can't seriously say that a Linux monopoly would be indistinguishable from a Windows monopoly! It's the source! You always have the source!

You claim it's not really an open-source revolution, but a Linux revolution. I completely disagree! I think one important reason why Linux has grabbed so much mindshare is the GPL.

BSD uses a different license - fair enough, I have no problem with people choosing whatever license they want to release code. But, if I am writing code for free, to give away, I don't want to see that code used for profit by companies that have burned me before. I'm a developer, mostly for Windows at the moment, and I've been burned by Microsoft in the past. Microsoft can use BSD-licensed code, "extend" it, and sell it for profit. Why would I want to support that? That's why I would use the GPL, implicitly would aligning myself with Linux rather than BSD.

And your comments on a Linux "Ruling Class" don't make sense. As long as the source is under the GPL, there is no ruling class. That's the whole point! It's FREE! Free to read, change, and modify! It's completely contrary to the concept of a ruling class that controls access and has special privilege!

The GPL gives you the source, remember - so you can always port to your favorite OS. Try that under the Windows monopoly - difficult, isn't it!

That's how a Linux "monopoly" would be different - the GPL makes a monopoly impossible.

Torrey Hoffman (Azog)

Yes, but Thin-Client - these will probably run ICA

[GC]

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.

Will IBM opensource their contributions?

[Gurlia]

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! :-)

What *PRECISELY* did the press release mean?

[Christopher B. Brown]

It's not clear exactly what is actually meant.

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.

OSS & The Bomb

[Duxup]

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.

Re:OSS & The Bomb

[lytles]

Speaking of The Bomb, check out The Bomb, a site dedicated to The Invisibles - Grant Morrison's counter-culture comic, a wonderfully weird mix of religion, drugs, aliens and revolution (Grant's been doing the JLA for a few years as well).

Re:Heh...

[ruud]

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.

--

They already run NetBSD

[perry]

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.

Bah

[Greyfox]

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.

Apparently...

[Greyfox]

They gave the mods for the S/390 to Linus, and corporate policy (If I understand things correctly) is to make software open unless the manager of the project can show a need to keep it closed (A good example of the latter would be the DB/2 source.)

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.

Atom bomb is easy...

[Greyfox]

All you need is a little weapons grade plutonium and a way to force it into a critical mass fast enough to get an explosion rather than a melt down.

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.

Re:We need a marketing slogan

[Steeltoe]

How about:

"Linux, raising user awareness-level of stuff they don't wanna know since 1992."

or

"Linux - Everything M$ without the $"

or perhaps

"Linux - You better believe our FUD, or your SOL"

I shudder to think of this one

"Linux - Sponsored by Redhat"

also

"Linux - Sponsored by Coke and Srg. Pepper"
is perhaps a bit too close to the truth?

or

"Linux, what's OO?"

or even

"Linux, because C is superior in every way."


Christ. How about just:

Linux

finally putting a stop of user-dumbing slogans once and for all. Let the users figure it out themselves.

- Steeltoe

Re:We need a marketing slogan

[jd]

*G*

I've got this image of a TV ad, with the camera panning in on this -ultra- sleek sports car, with the voice-over saying something like: "Fast... Dependable..."

Camera zooms through the window, to some kids playing a game on a laptop computer... "Universal... Linux... Where what you need is what you get."

Economics 101

[nedow]

• 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.

This press release is bullshit

[Blue Lang]

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