Slashdot Mirror
If IBM Is Serious About Linux, What Do WE Want?
bfree asks: "Robert LeBlanc, Vice President, Software Strategy, Software Solutions Division says both that IBM would open source any part of AIX and that we would be better off taking bits and pieces and the expertise that IBM bring along with it. IBM's AIX Web site lauds Linux compatibility of AIX and the new AIXL only just slightly behind their statements such as 'A robust, scalable UNIX platform for critical applications.' It's clear IBM wants to be involved with Linux, and I feel that we should want that also. What should we ask them to do for us in return for their involvement? Networking scalability and redundancy, optimization and facilities for database systems (as the jfs has started) or systems management applications? It seems to me we have the offer on the plate from IBM to create a new joined project to bring Linux up another level if we can find a way from AIX. Surely we must take them up on this?"
I work at IBM and I see that, while still a Multi-National Corporation (capitalists) , they're actually willing to move into a position of reciprocation with the Linux community. They make our OS better, we like them more, we buy their hardware. Hey, IBM makes some cool hardware anyway, so where's the problem?
/is/ the future. They're certainly not losing any time in gaining market dominace in hardware to support our OS.
Like I said, I work(ed) and will work at IBM on developing software for Linux. I got a chance to meet and talk w/ Jeff Smith, whose official position is VP of eBOSS (Electronic Business Operating Systems Solutions, I think) last summer during my first internship, and we discussed IBM's plans for Linux. I am active in two LUG's, as well as the Texas Tech ACM, and Jeff was able to come speak at Tech last semester. What did he talk about? IBM's plans for the future, wich seem to contain a heavy helping of Linux development and support. Why is IBM doing this? Because they're smarter than M$ insomuch as they realize that OSS
And they pay me to write GPL'd software. IBM kicks ass.
-Will the Chill
Legalize It.
Creator of RPerl, Scouter, Juggler, Mormon, Perl Monger, Serial Entrepreneur, Aspiring Astrophysicist, Community Organiz
A whole bunch of people think Linux? Are people so un-educated that they don't know about BSD? Open Sourced OSes are *MORE* than GNU/Linux.
From the person who asked the question, showing his lack of knowledge:
"Robert LeBlanc, Vice President, Software Strategy, Software Solutions Division says both that IBM would open source any part of AIX and that we would be better off taking bits and pieces and the expertise that IBM bring along with it.
IBM is committed to Open Source where they think it makes a good business choice.
Yet, a whole group of people see Open Source and jump to the conclusion that means Linux. IBM has contributed to the BSD project (via the whistlejet)
It seems to me we have the offer on the plate from IBM to create a new joined project to bring Linux up another level if we can find a way from AIX. Surely we must take them up on this?"
What if IBM writes code that EVERYONE can use? Be they BSD, Linux, SCO, etc? Does this make them non "Open Source"? If IBM is truly an Open Source company they should consider making their code work with EVERYONE.
What is better to encourage IBM to do?
Ask them to release code for Linux, and pretend that is Open Source, *OR* ask them to make sure what they release is useable by EVERYONE who believes in Open Source code?
If it was said on slashdot, it MUST be true!
...and find someplace to land with Linux before it's too late.
.com's. For you to hand them an OS and say, "We want this and this and this and this and this and this and this..., oh, and while you're at it, throw in a nice screen saver or two as well!", you'll get a simple reply of "Why?"
..."
Networking scalability and redundancy, optimisation and facilities for database systems (as the jfs has started) or systems management applications?
Try and understand this from a business model. IBM has been around for an EXTREMELY long time (in computer years, I mean). They've survived longer than many computer companies (Packard Bell, for instance), and outlasted many
IBM doesn't want Linux just so it can become part of the "basement programmer Linux movement." The last thing they want is an anarchal OS that's being developed for EVERYTHING. Anything that's aimed for everything is looked on by a business as 1) Egotistical, and 2) Doomed to fail. (Yes, MS Windows is an exception, but there are always exceptions to the rule.)
IBM is going to want a target to shoot for. They want to get Linux and have someone tell them, "Market it towards the office. Here's why: It's free. Offices love free. All we need from you is to make it into a scalable office OS and you'll make money." Or..."Market it towards the Enterprise Server. It has remarkable scalability, is a Network OS, and all we need from you is
IBM's knocking on Linux's door. Don't let the opportunity get shot down. IBM's a business, while Linux was NOT developed under a business model. Find a bridge, and Linux will have the oportunity to join up with one of the biggest names in the computer industry.
On a more serious note, I'm not sure that IBM's contribution has to necessarily be directed at the OS itself. They could probably make good contributions to MySQL, maybe Apache, possibly a web broswer. These are things that, if this were Microsoft, would be thought of as components of the OS but are certainly necessary pieces if Linux is to make inroads on the desktop.
Given that they have loads of Unix experience I imagine they could help improve security as well. Linux is lacking in good GUI based security management. No doubt many Slashdotters are perfectly happy with CLI (I am) but 90 out of 100 SAs I talk to equate CLI with the 1980s.
Anyway, I'm not sure that the community needs to ask IBM for anything. Linux is given away free as in speech. I don't think it you can give software away for several years and then start asking for favors once companies have embraced it. This isn't to say that they don't have an ethical responsibility to give a little back, I'm just not sure that we should be the ones who decide what. If their past history is any indication (didn't they just open an FS?) they will no doubt make a contribution.
Icebox
We can't keep IBM from porting this stuff to Linux, but I hope major Linux distributions will have the good sense not to put it into the standard installations. I switched from AIX to Linux when I had the choice. There is virtue in being simpler: Linux was faster than AIX on slower hardware, it was more reliable, and it was simpler to use for server applications. If there is one thing I wouldn't mind seeing IBM contribute, it's their Fortran 90 compiler. Linux lacks a good, free, native Fortran 90 compiler right now. Beyond that, I can't think of anything in AIX that I would like in Linux.
And don't get confused about why companies like IBM and SGI are "donating" this stuff: they have a big legacy software problem, and they want to rid themselves of their albatrosses. This isn't "advanced technology" they are contributing for the good of the world, it's messy legacy functionality they want to get into a publically maintained software base so that they don't have to pay for software maintenance for their legacy customers. Most of the customers who want that stuff come from a different computing era and environment than Linux, and I suspect many of them will want to continue using proprietary software (meaning NT or Solaris).
Making software open in order to reduce development and systems integration costs is as good a motivation as any for contributing to open source software. But while it may be very attractive for a vendor to have such stuff added to the Linux kernel and OS, ultimately, the open source community may pay a steep cost in delayed releases and reduced usability as Linux gets ever more complex. Open source needs to be selective about what it accepts. Maybe Linus should start charging money for putting formerly commercial software into the kernel.
Disclaimer: I'm an IBMer.
IBM has big plans for Linux, as I'm sure everyone knows. There is a Linux Technology Center in Austin, Texas. Many good people down there doing nothing but working on Linux. IBM also has many open source projects, most under the IBM Public License, at the developerworks open source site. And I'm sure there are many other things IBM is doing that I don't know about (I'm just an employee).
However, IBM is not a complete friend of Open Source, just yet. It took me over 4 months of constant effort to get approval to attempt to contribute to the Linux kernel, and even then I only have approval to modify 4 files!!! Let's not forget that IBM is, by *far*, the world leader in patents. There are many parts of IBM which use Linux and open source, but are very hesitant to contribute to open source.
That said, there are many good people in IBM who really do want to do good things. It's just not that easy to get paid by IBM to do them. But it is possible.
So, back to the question of what Linux can do for IBM. I know exactly what the community can do for IBM. Accept us. I have received a lot of resistance to any help I offer on mailing lists. Patches and comments are ignored. My initial contact with a certain kernel developement mailing list was met with...quite a bit of hesitation, to say the least. I think a lot of kernel developers are very skeptical of IBM employees. Maybe they think we're only sending patches or commenting/discussing so we can sell some product, and in some cases, they may be right. But please, don't assume someone should not be trusted just beacuse they have @us.ibm.com in their sig. Just because I get paid by IBM doesn't mean I don't want to help.
First, I think the Free Software community needs to do some serious thinking about what technologies IBM can bring to the table. However, I'm not going to try and answer that question, because I think there's another question that needs to be asked in almost the same breath.
If IBM is willing to cater to our needs, then how can we reciprocate?
The foundation of free software is sharing resources, ideas and solutions--helping the other guy get his job done--building a community out of relationships, not between programs but between people.
If IBM is serious about joining the community (and if any IBMers are reading this, let me say that I really hope you are), then we need to reciprocate their seriousness with seriousness of our own.
We need to seriously ask, what can we give IBM?
I think the more IBM sees a willingness from us to work with them, the more willing IBM will be to work with us.
In this light, I would only ask this of IBM: Sell a hundred million copies of Linux, especially to the big businesses. Show the commercial world that there are good alternatives to Windows. Do what ever it takes do this. Adding software will be a small part of the project, which you may not even have to write yourself, if you discuss your needs with us. Build your own distribution, sell commercial software on the side, build a world-wide support network, print manuals, what ever it takes. Make sure that when Linux reaches total world domination, a good part of it is IBM Linux.
In Murphy We Turst
Linux is absolutely amazing for typical workstation class systems, but the one place that it seriously lacks in comparision to the other serious [and propriatary] unix'es [unices?] is in support for really big systems.
...Now, if only this could all somehow be a compile time option, that would be spectacular. The problem, though, is that we are talking about significant differences in basic architecture and of what the kernel has to worry about, these are significant design decisions. I don't think it's as easy as putting a few #ifdefs in the source.
What, you say? Isn't linux used on many supercomputer class systems, and heck, IBM even ported it to the S390! Well, yes... and no.
On clusters, linux is an excellent choice, due to it's efficiency and perhaps especially due to it's lack of licensing costs/hassels. But the key thing with clusters is that they are just that, clusters of workstation class machines. The `big'ness of them comes from the parallelism of many small machines working together, which it turns out is quite usefull for certain classes of a problems.
The S390 linux port is the same sort of thing. A massive big iron system, running hundreds of different simultanious copies of linux, each in it's own virtualized address space. Linux couldn't manage the resources and power of the entire machine, but as a 'process' in it, it does just fine; and this too is usefull, for say, consolidating what would otherwise have required rooms of rackmounts, with their own upkeep hassle, into one box [plus, cluster type applications can take advantage of the much faster [then ethernet] internal system bus for message passing, thus achieving comparatively much better performance then `real' clusters.
So, to make a long story short, what does linux really need? Big iron stuff: quality NUMA integrated into the memory management code [as a compile-time option, of course]. True support for high order SMP [say, 64 or 256 processors] and all that that requires [such as distributed kernel threads across multiple CPU's].
One of the problems, of course, is that adding this extra architecture into the kernel would slow it down on good old fashioned workstations, which is where linux is [currently] almost exclusively used [although that S390 thing rocks!].
---
man sig
---
the pen is mightier then the sword. the sword is mightier then the court. the court is mightier then the pen.