Slashdot Mirror
IBM Wants Linux
jsse writes "In a news conference IBM's senior vice president Steve Mills said 'the company will gladly drop its version of Unix from servers and replace it with Linux if the software matures so that it can handle the most demanding tasks.' Now the Giant, along with many other companies, jump to Linux bandwagon. The question is wether this bandwagon is capable of carrying a Giant that huge. Or the question is: can Linux beats AIX?"
Perhaps the Open Source Community is up to the challenge, but AIX performs admirably in exactly the machines and situations in which Linux does the worst: multi-processor non-intel boxes with 4+ gigs of RAM. Right now, a person would be nuts to run linux in production on an RS/6000. The package stability on that hardware is sketchy, at best.
IBM's also spent a lot of time doing little things like graphics acceleration for their workstations that Linux can't yet strongly match.
As much as I'd like to see the death of AIX and dance on SMIT's grave, I think we're seeing the same story at the enterprise level as we always have: Operating Systems designed for enterprise hardware tend to be better on that hardware than Operating Systems designed for low-end microcomputers. If IBM dumped a hundred developers into pushing linux on its Power-based hardware, then we might see something to compete with AIX; as it is, there isn't a large enough install base for linux development to acheive critical mass.
IMHO, natch.
I'm reminded of the scene in "Pirates of Silicon Valley" where Gates and company were sitting down to negotiate with IBM and it was said, "Everybody knows that the real money is made in hardware, not software".
Well IBM was wrong at the time in that statement but it might finally be the truth.
It also makes sense for IBM from a financial perspective. Instead of having a building full of programmers/managers and other overhead that eats up corporate profits just to support AIX, why not outsource that dependency to the open-source users of the world. Big blue then reduces their expenses, increases their income and the open-source community gets a juggernaut pulling for their team. A win-win situation if I've ever heard one.
p.s. - These are my opinions and not my employers who happens to be discussed in this thread.
-- "In a time of drastic change it is the learners who survive; the 'learned' find themselves fully equipped to live in
The problem I see with this is that if a company as big as IBM wants to use something like Linux, they're going to want some kind of control of the direction it goes. Companies have been trying to get Linus to loosen his 'control' of the kernel for a while now. No company with smart leadership will drop support for a product that they have complete power over, in favor of an OS where they have little-to-no control over the direction that it takes.
However, we've seen that IBM has put a fairly good amount of time, money, and effort into making Linux compatable with their products, and their products compatable with linux itself. But so far, I just don't seem them dropping AIX for Linux anytime soon. Not until the control over the linux kernel becomes more decentralized.
I think when IBM says they'll use linux if it "matures so that it can handle the most demanding tasks," they don't mean "you guys need to build pretty little admin GUIs, and make sure linux is consistent looking." I'm thinking that they're more looking for the ability to scale to a large number of processors, and high amounts of RAM.
On that subject, does anyone know if IBM's Big Iron patches ever made it on to the main kernel tree?
Garc
I'm sure IBM does a great deal of validation testing. Why not tell the kernel developers where things come up short? One of the most valuable development prerequisites are good bug reports. IBM could unleash their testing team. Or does politics get in the way -- the testing team manager doesn't approve of the Linux takeover?
1. As has already been stated IBM has been on the Linux bandwagon for several years now.
2. This makes perfect sense for IBM. They are mainly a service company and secondly a hardware company. Anyone who has done business with IBM knows that they, like most other large computer companies, make their money on installation and support. If they can cut the expense of developing their own OS they can focus on their core business.
But assuming that GNU/Linux can evolve to an acceptable level (the level of UNIX, in other words), and assuming that the support from IBM, HP, Sun, and Compaq continues, we'll be in a great position. One of the promises of UNIX was portability; if five commercial UNIXs have a common interface, they should be easy to port between, right?
Wrong... years of corporate specialization and AT&T's rightful protection of the system have created a computing culture which is almost as closed as Microsoft's. Now, porting an application from Solaris to HP-UX can potentially take as long as porting from Solaris to NT.
Enter GNU/Linux. Stallman, Torvalds, and the rest of the usual suspects essentially ripped off AT&T. (It's crucial that you understand this. While those developers can be thanked for the GNU/Linux implementation, the design and archiecture is stolen-- albeit modifed -- IP.) GNU/Linux is UNIX-like, but is also completely open. Thus, if Linux can meet these corporate giants' needs, they should adopt it.
IBM's adoption of Linux for the enterprise will mean many things. It will mean that RS/6000 customers like myself will get new software faster, because Linux is always ahead of AIX on software developers' port lists. And if Linux can also run reasonably on Sun and HP hardware, then we could be talking about UNIX's dream of portability, embodied in GNU/Linux: an open, common interface for hardcore RISC systems. This would be a good thing for everybody expect supporters of inferior x86 servers: x86 hardware vendors and Microsoft.
But while GNU/Linux has brought this uptopia one step closer, it isn't here yet. Talk to any knowledgable, experienced developer or sysadmin, and he will tell you that GNU/Linux simply can't touch UNIX for the majority of serious computing tasks. Linux is cheaper, and in some instances is faster, but just can't deliver the same kind of scalable performance and rock-solid availabilty that are the reasons I'm running AIX right now.
--
I like to watch.
These machines have the same hardware, but different OS-es. The RS/6000 group ships their systems with AIX, while the AS/400 group ships their systems with OS/400 and if the customer wants a Unix, with Linux, not with AIX.
Rumour has it that the groups don't like eachother that much. What I wonder now is: is IBM axing the complete RS/6000 group in favor of the AS/400 group?
Never underestimate the relief of true separation of Religion and State.
well, will those quite familiar with aix please enlighten us with what linux could be missing? it's got xfs, lvm, ppc support. and that's about the end of what i know aix and linux now share.
Well, as a SysAdmin who manages 50 AIX servers and 20 Solaris servers I can try to offer some info.
As has been written in a couple of posts already, AIX is designed to run on enterprise-level hardware. The bonus is that since the OS and hardware all come from IBM, there is a single point of contact for those problems. There are some really cool things that separate AIX from other UNIX's:
* Most of the critical OS functions can be controlled via the SMIT interface.
* Unlike other flavours of UNIX, AIX does not use flat files to define parameters for daemons. AIX has all the relevant information stored in an internal database (The ODM).
* AIX ships with a journaled file system and file systems can be grown on the fly.
* AIX gives way more control over disk management than other flavours of UNIX. It is easy to implement the various type sof RAID. AIX also lets you control where certain files can be physically located on your disk, and during off-peak hours the system can move files around to re-organize the disks.
* It is trivial to create a complete image of the system on a bootable tape, so disaster recovery is a snap.
There are some downsides to AIX:
* AIX takes >5 minutes to boot.
* If the ODM gets corrupted, your system can be toast.
* Sometimes it is necessary to modify the ODM directly, and this can be a bit risky (see above)
* Third-party support for AIX is sketchy. It is better to use IBM applications where possible.
* IBM hardware is more expensive than the alternatives. You pay a premium for Big Blue.
Of the downsides, the last is the most significant. Not many non-IBM vendors write applications for it, and even if they do, Solaris, and Linux get more attention.
Sorry for sounding like a commercial for IBM, but I like AIX. It does some things very well, and is quite stable. My team manages a lot of mission-critical servers and AIX is nice to work with. We have talked briefly about Linux, the perception is that Linux is not yet ready for enterprise-class workload.
*** Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket?
Now if only all of the other vendors realized that they were selling hardware instead of UNIX
... they are in serious trouble because there is no money in hardware. If IBM thinks it can make money from Linux, then it will do so by putting the full weight of their name behind the product and selling professional services around its implementation.
It's time to analyse the facts: IBM, Sun, HP, and Unisys who are the main players in the high-end market (if we forget NCR, Hitachi, and Compaq for the moment) do not make their money from selling hardware, though I'm sure someone must have made a few $$$s from the two Sun E10Ks my last client invested in *grin*
They make their real revenue from the services which they provide to turn their hardware into fully-functioning enterprise-class systems which deliver real business benefit which affects the buyers bottom line.
I've never saw a client sue a manufacturer when something goes wrong (like not being able to sync two E10Ks in a failover cluster), but struggle on and on until the problem is fixed, happy in the knowledge that it will get fixed.
Remember this is Red Hats approach: the added value of their product is the service they provide. They don't earn large revenue's from selling boxed "7.2" distros on Amazon.
Remember what happened to all those "Linux" hardware companies trying to make money shifting boxes
Linux doesn't have STREAMS or TLI support; this means that device drivers are significantly different from the rest of the (commercial) UNIX(TM) world. There are third party patches, but STREAMS will never make it into the source tree, because Linus has explicitly rejected it.
Linux doesn't (AFAIK -- correct me if I am wrong!) have run-time tunable quanta (timeslices) for scheduling. The 'jiffy' (minimum unit of time measurement) is still tied to a 100 Hz clock (except on Alpha, where it is 1024Hz). Other run-time tunable parameters include features like page replacement algorithms (when to replace pages in memory). Solaris has a 'two-handed clock sweep' algorithm, and runtime tunable parameters include the 'spread' between the 'hands' and the speed of the 'clock rotation' (cf. Stallings, William. Operating Systems)
This isn't a linux problem per se, but the gcc toolkit doesn't make the best object code on any target other than x86. That's why solaris distributes gcc with solaris8 but remains confident you're going to get /opt/SUNWpro compilers. Same goes with Tru64, etc. etc. Since most commercial Unices run on non-Intel platforms (Solaris, AIX, Tru64, Mac OS X, HP-UX, IRIX) it generally means that you're not going to get the best executables if you use gcc (exceptions include Mac OS X)
As others have said, NUMA doesn't scale well. Linux proper doesn't have good 'processor affinity' (ie, tying a process to a specific processor).
Linux doesn't have good capabilities support or support for ACLs. While some capabilities exist (eg, CAP_DAC_OVERRIDE for embedded systems without filesystems, or the capability to bind to ports < 1024 without being root), a lot of big-iron systems need capabilities more approaching that of VMS or Windows NT kernel (note I said kernel, not Win32). You can get some capabilities with LIDS, but that's generally related to the CAP_DAC and CAP_MAC set, without much more. As for ACLs, you *can* find some patches, but they're most certainly not standard. Moreover, VFS isn't quite set for things like LVM, much less filesystem plug-ins (witness the hullaballoo in putting ReiserFS in the system because it didn't conform to VFS conventions).
Linux failover and high-availability generally applies to clustering solutions; I've yet to see things like hot-swappable CPUs or multiple backplane support in Linux.
This isn't to say Linux isn't great. I use it along with OpenStep and FreeBSD as my main operating systems. Most people don't need the above, or the penalties for uniprocessor x86 hardware are high (who wants STREAMS on an IBM PC-compatible?). But for commercial UNIX (TM), the above is pretty relied upon.
Three Step Plan:
1. Take over the world.
2. Get a lot of cookies.
3. Eat the cookies.
(It's crucial that you understand this. While those developers can be thanked for the GNU/Linux implementation, the design and archiecture is stolen-- albeit modifed -- IP.)
... namely from MINIX, which was a minimal, educational recreation of UNIX 7), not stolen in any sense of the word, not even in the "newspeak" sense that the Copyright Cartels and DMCA Apologists have redefined the word to mean.
While you make some good points, I take exception to this characterization of GNU/Linux's similarity to UNIX and its POSIX compliance as "stolen IP." Numerous court decisions, including Apple v. Microsoft, have consistently ruled that compatiblity, compliance to standards, and even the wholesale mimicking of a competitor's look and feel do not constitute a violation of intellectual property in any manner. The design and architecture were copied legally (actually, to be historically accurate, they were copied from a copy
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy