Slashdot Mirror
The Pros and Cons of Mainframe Linux
magellan writes "There is a good article on LinuxWorld.com that goes over some of the pros and cons of Linux on the mainframe. The author, Paul Murphy is an old mainframer and current UNIX user, as well as a frequent contributor to LinuxWorld.com, so he has some good insights.
"
Users who do not want to take a subscription, or demand that certain changes be made to the website or the editorial policy before they would consider doing so, are often called "whiners"; practices like using software such as the Internet Junkbuster to view ad-free pages without paying are scorned upon by the editors.
Now, let's look at Pater's (aka "Cowboi Kneel") record when it comes to compensating websites for services rendered.
Over at livejournal.com, said slashdot editor keeps a diary.But before I come to the heart of the matter: What is livejournal.com exactly? Let me quote from their website:
(Emphasis mine.)
You also get some additional features by paying for an account, similar to Slashdot ("feature" there: no ads)
Now, on livejournal.com there are 4 categories of membership:
We would of course expect Neal to support this volunteer-run, non-profit. ad-free website by getting a paid account? Isn't this the Linux, the open source spirit of the new millenium?
After all, he's been keeping his journal there since at least the beginning of April 2002, so he should have had ample time to see if livejournal.com's service is worth the money.
If we now look at Cowboi Kneel's user info, what do we see?
Oh no! My assumption was wrong; what, for Christ's sake, happened? Why would Pater not want to support such an excellent site as livejournal.com?
Could it be that Cowboy Neal is a freeloader, that he doesn't what to help a site which does offer some value to him (obviously, as he's been posting there for more than a month)? That he doesn't have any problem whatsoever using up their bandwidth, disk space and volunteer time without giving something in return, all the while (together with the other editors) expecting us, the users of slashdot.com, to donate ( "we regard this as a tip jar" ) to their corporate, profit-driven site?
Could it be that Cowboy Neal is a hypocrite?
pro: it's free
con: it sucks
--
pants ahoy
Mainframe Linux? Linux is dead my friends.
security through obscurity = modding down anti-linux posts so maybe noone will see them
There once was a coder named Linus
Who let RMS touch his penis
They'd jerk and they'd play
And Linus would say,
'We're outside, someone could have seen us'
Pro: It's free.
Con: It's Linux.
Like explaining how the Civil Rights movement completed many of the objectives that the Reconstruction set out to accomplish?
Linux the utility OS, runs anywhere. I have it on Intel & Alpha at home. What hardware do you want to make sing today :-)
What OS do you want to abuse today?
For the less-informed: Linux began on the 386, was ported to the 486 and Pentium by GNU (stands for "GNU: Not Unix"), and recently has been showing up everywhere from your refridgerator to the Playstation.
So I was not surprised that I could run Linux on my corporate mainframe. I had been using a kind of homebrew combo of NT and OpenBSD before (mainframes can be set up to dual boot much easier than your typical PC) and decided to switch to Linux because of its USB drivers.
Basically, performance nearly matched my old setup, outcomputing the previous OS in some trials, and otherwise putting up a fair fight.
The preemptive multithreading and protected process management in the 2.4.5 kernel have been a boon to enterprise-class admins everywhere. The minor disagreement over disk drivers was solved eventually, and I think mainframe Linux has a bright and starry future.
Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)
Linux really does suck people. Come on.
I work in a large datacenter with some very powerful machines, and I just don't see Linux having much of a future on mainframes, at least not without some serious kernel improvements. It is an excellent OS, and would be a good choice for a workstation or a low-end server, but would be a very poor choice for a high-end mainframe machine. The linux kernel is highly configurable and it would certainly be possible to get a Linux kernel running on a massively parallel machine, but this was not what Linux was designed for, and performance would not be on par with other more robust Unices. Linux' inferior TCP/IP stack as well as its inferior handling of multi-threading on a large scale is its major weakness in this area. Until these weaknesses are addressed, I would prefer Solaris, Irix, or HP/UX instead, as they were designed from the ground up with mainframe usage in mind.
-atrowe: Card-carrying Mensa member. I have no toleranse for stupidity.
I don't get it, why would you want to run Linux on a mainframe? There are serious issues that leave Linux with limited scalability, even if you're running a few dozen virtual machines. It just seems like a waste with all the effort that's already been put into a truly fantastic machine and OS.
One of the great advantages of Linux on the mainframe is the neat shit you can run on it.
As noted on the Smithsonian Institution's site, the first official American flag had thirteen stars and thirteen stripes, each representing one of the thirteen original states.
The flag icon for Slashdot's 'United States' section is missing its first stripe - the stripe that represents Delaware, the first state admitted to the Union. While a simple oversight could be forgiven, it should be known from here on out that Slashdot is in fact aware of the missing stripe, and even worse, refuses to do anything about it!
This vulgar flag desecration and rabid anti-Delawarism must be put to a stop. Let the Slashdot crew know that we will not accept a knowingly mutilated flag or the insinuation that Delawarians deserve to be cut out of the union. I ask you, what has Delaware done to deserve this insolence, this wanton disregard, this bigotry?
This intentional disregard of a vital national symbol is unpatriotic. Why, the flippant remarks CmdrTaco made about our flag border on terrorism! I urge you to join the protest in each 'United States' story. Sacrifice your karma for your country by pointing out this injustice. Let's all work together to get our flag back. Can you give your country any less?
It's still Linux, whether you run it on a Celeron or a mainframe.
You've got the right hardware, but the software still isn't 'mainframe' level.
I was about to spend 5 million dollars on a new zSeries setup, but after reading the article I thought "maybe my laptop is good enough for now".
-... ---
(see this report of a test on a 733-MHz Linux system for details on mstone) run on the mainframe.
Yes, it's a word document. You'd think anyone writing an article for a Linux targetted site would at least check or convert the document to something everyone can read...
Code, Hardware, stuff like that.
Besides pricing, the more high end the server goes... the more I will lean toward solaris.
I am linux-biased folks are going to / me for this.... but I am speaking from experience.
I'm my daddy's 13 year old stepdaughter. After daddy showers, I curl up on his lap. He makes me remove my underwear from beneath my Catholic school uniform. He says he's filling me with "love" and injecting vitamins into my body. It's so warm and nice.
We look at pictures of women with no clothes on. I giggle, but stepdaddy bounces me on his lap and I feel oh so good.
Daddy says the vitamins go in better if I shave the "peach fuzz" down there. Plus, my pigtails act like handles so he can go "Vroom! Vroom!" and ride me like a motorcycle.
Daddy made me eat the vitamins a couple of times. It's like salty, creamy custard.
I hate it when daddy holds my breasts too hard while injecting vitamins into my tushie. That hurts, but he said that tough love and good medicine are the best combination. Sometimes I bleed from that.
I can't tell mommy or she'll make stepdaddy go away and I'll die from not having my vitamins.
What's that? You say you smell plot cliches? If cliches smell like rancid cow shit, then you may be on to something:
The renegade Holograms have disabled Voyager and escaped to warp, but not before abducting Lt. Torres in hopes of benefiting from her expertise with holo-technology.
The Doctor, who voluntarily joined the renegades, is furious with the group's leader, Iden, but Iden promises to let Torres go once she has a chance to decide for herself whether to help the Holograms. Meanwhile, the Voyager crew struggles to repair the ship in Torres' absence, and Janeway learns that the Doctor betrayed and abandoned the ship, and wonders if his matrix may have been altered by the other Holograms.
Jesus Christ. When they're not having a "holodeck" episode, or an episode with the borg + time travel, they're having an episode about holograms. Not only is this "photonic lifeform" bullshit completely ridiculous, they drape it in this extra layer of faggoty political correctness. They talk about "photonic lifeform rights" and all this other bleeding-heart-liberal pseudo-philosophy that's just plot filler because the special effects department ran out of money for explosions.
I don't want to feel like I'm watching a fucking civil rights movement. I want to see naked bitches getting fucked. I want to see huge fucking explosions. I want to see giant tits. I want to see Seven of Nine get raped in the ass by a giant biomechanical tentacle monster, Urotsukidoji style.
And when was the last fucking time we even saw a skirt on this show? Uhura used to trollop around in little go-go outfits all the time. The best we can hope for these days is that maybe Seven will bend over to pick up an errant phaser, and we'll get a half-second shot of her spandex-clad ass.
Fuck that. They had actual porn stars like Angelique Pettyjohn (ever see Stalag 69?) in the original Star Trek series. But I guess we live in the age of mediocre bullshit.
I fucking give up.
Um, Solaris, Irix, and HP/UX (shudder) are *NOT* mainframe operating systems.
MVS and OS/390 are mainframe operating systems.
You are talking out of your nether regions, especially when you call linux's TCP/IP stack inferior to HP/UX. I have adminned every operating system mentioned above except Irix, and you sir are grossly incorrect.
Who was the dimwit that moderated this interesting? Given the large number of "close but no cigar" inaccurate claims, I'd think this was egg troll (C: A Dead Language, etc) in disguise.
Of course, make bogus pro linux claims, get modded up.
Linux cons........CONS!
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
GNU stands for "Gnu's not Unix."
Funnily enough I just came across this article on ZDNet that talks about how Linux isn't a very good long term server solution. Its here at http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-909084.html
AFAIK, there are no mainframes that run NT. And I've never seen one with a USB port, either. Your post makes absolutely no sense from a mainframe perspective. What are you talking about with "dual boot"? Mainframes can run multiple simultaneous LPARs, which are virtual machines sort of like VMware provides, but nobody ever boots a mainframe if they can avoid it. And mainframers don't use the word "boot" anyway, since individual components of the mainframe can be individual restarted. Mainframers IPL from the HMC, which is the analogous operation to rebooting. Mainframes run VM, MVS, OS/390, and similar. They don't run NT or OpenBSD (though OpenBSD could probably be ported). There is no graphics console device on a mainframe, so how the hell could you run NT?
Re:in case the comment gets slashdotted (Score:-1) by Burritos on Friday May 10, @12:56PM (#3497616) (User #535298 Info | http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Tuesday April 16, @12:55PM) Re:in case the comment gets slashdotted (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 10, @12:43PM (#3497544) in case of slashdotting..... (Score:-1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 10, @11:05AM (#3497247) Spider-Man shocked analysts and critics last week, racking up a record-breaking $114 million opening weekend for Sam Raimi's warm- hearted adaptation about the web-slinging arachnoid-nerd from Queens who gets the bad guy but really wants the girl. Spider-Man embodies the simplest, most elemental tenets of myth, especially when compared to the increasingly elephantine Skywalker saga, which seems more like a graduate program than a story each time there's a new movie. I'll bet Peter Parker's adventure surpasses the upcoming opening weekend of Attack of the Clones and teaches George Lucas something about the power and nature of myth. Like Star Wars, Spider-Man has the classic elements of a successful myth. A typically American story, it's less pretentious and hyped than Star Wars and more accessible to kids and die-hard comic book buffs, who remember the great, golden age of Marvel Comics. I'm one of them, I was there. The old form still has legs. One film analysts told the Wall Street Journal last week that with the success of Spider-Man, the blockbuster bar has been raised. In fact, he said, this movie has changed Hollywood's perception of what a blockbuster is. That makes it interesting for George Lucas, next up at your local megaplex. It's tough to explain, in the age of cable, gaming, the Net and the Web, just how central comics were for years to a culture of brainy, nerdy, alienated pre-Net teenage boys. Now, hostile jerks can flame people on the Net. Before, they could only read sci- fi books, build model planes and erector sets, but mostly, feast on comics and dream of becoming more powerful. In the 21st century, they can download, program and game, but in the 50s and 60s, comic books and rock-and-roll were prominent among the few accessible forms of popular culture for individualists with brain cells, a cheap, simple pleasure that cost a dime, then a quarter. How shockingly primitive when compared to the world of the computer nerd or hacker. Mainstream culture was dull, religiously appropriate and homogenized. Comic books and rock music were rebellious, subversive and naturally came under murderous fire from parents, teachers and politicians. Before, they could only read comics and fantasize about becoming more powerful. Elaborate ratings systems and restrictive codes eventually suffocated the comics' angry, biting spirit and made them as bland as network TV -- a cultural loss and free-speech outrage heading soon to a computer near you -- but not before Marvel and other comic creators cranked out some classic yarns, from Spider-Man and Batman to the X- Men and other superheroic tales. What makes these stories so popular and enduring? Perhaps because they all embody certain themes. There's the split-personality hero, usually a nerd who acquires great powers but at enormous cost, who always gets something and loses something. He gets to zip along past New York City skyscrapers, for instance, but we know he isn't likely to end up with the girl. Or, he lives in a mansion and drives a Batmobile, but he's depressed and lonely. Or he's a mutant wolverine with fingers of steel who can't ever have a casual beer with his pals. He cherishes his powers, but we know he can't ever be comfortable with his life. Robert Kane's early Batman: The Dark Knight was disturbingly dark and angry before the moralists turned comic books to bland mush. Few people remember that Kane ended his first Batman series with our hero giving up on life and essentially committing suicide by turning himself into the famed Arkham Asylum, where villains from the Joker to the Riddler were being held. Stories like Spider-Man and Batman also have a uniquely American and, until September 11, old-fashioned sense of civics. Spider-man's motto is "With great power comes great responsibility, " a bizarre notion even to hackers. Wouldn't that have seem Read the rest of this comment... [ Reply to This | Parent ] That's pretty f-ing funny (Score:1) by borg on Friday May 10, @12:33PM (#3497482) (User #95568 Info) self-referential humor that lampoons the karma-whores around slashdot is probably too subtle for the average slashdotter these days...explaining both your current -1 (redundant) mod as well as why simple cut-n-paste karma-whoring seems to always work. no wonder you posted AC. too many non-nerds on slashdot these days. a true nerd site would have sent that to +3 (funny) by now. future historians no doubt will trace the downfall of linux to the moment X windows worked out of the box on anything but an S3... [ Reply to This | Parent ] Re:That's pretty f-ing funny (Score:1) by rohdem on Friday May 10, @12:44PM (#3497555) (User #321708 Info) I agree. This is hilarious, but only slashdot diehards can appreciate the humor. [ Reply to This | Parent ] Re:That's pretty f-ing funny (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 10, @12:59PM (#3497631) in case of slashdotting..... (Score:-1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 10, @12:05PM (#3497247) Spider-Man shocked analysts and critics last week, racking up a record-breaking $114 million opening weekend for Sam Raimi's warm-hearted adaptation about the web-slinging arachnoid-nerd from Queens who gets the bad guy but really wants the girl. Spider-Man embodies the simplest, most elemental tenets of myth, especially when compared to the increasingly elephantine Skywalker saga, which seems more like a graduate program than a story each time there's a new movie. I'll bet Peter Parker's adventure surpasses the upcoming opening weekend of Attack of the Clones and teaches George Lucas something about the power and nature of myth. Like Star Wars, Spider-Man has the classic elements of a successful myth. A typically American story, it's less pretentious and hyped than Star Wars and more accessible to kids and die-hard comic book buffs, who remember the great, golden age of Marvel Comics. I'm one of them, I was there. The old form still has legs. One film analysts told the Wall Street Journal last week that with the success of Spider-Man, the blockbuster bar has been raised. In fact, he said, this movie has changed Hollywood's perception of what a blockbuster is. That makes it interesting for George Lucas, next up at your local megaplex. It's tough to explain, in the age of cable, gaming, the Net and the Web, just how central comics were for years to a culture of brainy, nerdy, alienated pre-Net teenage boys. Now, hostile jerks can flame people on the Net. Before, they could only read sci-fi books, build model planes and erector sets, but mostly, feast on comics and dream of becoming more powerful. In the 21st century, they can download, program and game, but in the 50s and 60s, comic books and rock-and-roll were prominent among the few accessible forms of popular culture for individualists with brain cells, a cheap, simple pleasure that cost a dime, then a quarter. How shockingly primitive when compared to the world of the computer nerd or hacker. Mainstream culture was dull, religiously appropriate and homogenized. Comic books and rock music were rebellious, subversive and naturally came under murderous fire from parents, teachers and politicians. Before, they could only read comics and fantasize about becoming more powerful. Elaborate ratings systems and restrictive codes eventually suffocated the comics' angry, biting spirit and made them as bland as network TV -- a cultural loss and free-speech outrage heading soon to a computer near you -- but not before Marvel and other comic creators cranked out some classic yarns, from Spider-Man and Batman to the X-Men and other superheroic tales. What makes these stories so popular and enduring? Perhaps because they all embody certain themes. There's the split-personality hero, usually a nerd who acquires great powers but at enormous cost, who always gets something and loses something. He gets to zip along past New York City skyscrapers, for instance, but we know he isn't likely to end up with the girl. Or, he lives in a mansion and drives a Batmobile, but he's depressed and lonely. Or he's a mutant wolverine with fingers of steel who can't ever have a casual beer with his pals. He cherishes his powers, but we know he can't ever be comfortable with his life. Robert Kane's early Batman: The Dark Knight was disturbingly dark and angry before the moralists turned comic books to bland mush. Few people remember that Kane ended his first Batman series with our hero giving up on life and essentially committing suicide by turning himself into the famed Arkham Asylum, where villains from the Joker to the Riddler were being held. Stories like Spider-Man and Batman also have a uniquely American and, until September 11, old-fashioned sense of civics. Spider-man's motto is "With great power comes great responsibility, " a bizarre notion even to hackers. Wouldn't that have seemed clunky before the terrorist attacks? Now it has a certai [dolphinse.cx] Read the rest of this comment... [ Reply to This | Parent ] Re:That's pretty f-ing funny (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 10, @01:08PM (#3497711) in case of slashdotting..... (Score:-1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 10, @12:05PM (#3497247) Spider-Man shocked analysts and critics last week, racking up a record-breaking $114 million opening weekend for Sam Raimi's warm-hearted adaptation about the web-slinging arachnoid-nerd from Queens who gets the bad guy but really wants the girl. Spider-Man embodies the simplest, most elemental tenets of myth, especially when compared to the increasingly elephantine Skywalker saga, which seems more like a graduate program than a story each time there's a new movie. I'll bet Peter Parker's adventure surpasses the upcoming opening weekend of Attack of the Clones and teaches George Lucas something about the power and nature of myth. Like Star Wars, Spider-Man has the classic elements of a successful myth. A typically American story, it's less pretentious and hyped than Star Wars and more accessible to kids and die-hard comic book buffs, who remember the great, golden age of Marvel Comics. I'm one of them, I was there. The old form still has legs. One film analysts told the Wall Street Journal last week that with the success of Spider-Man, the blockbuster bar has been raised. In fact, he said, this movie has changed Hollywood's perception of what a blockbuster is. That makes it interesting for George Lucas, next up at your local megaplex. It's tough to explain, in the age of cable, gaming, the Net and the Web, just how central comics were for years to a culture of brainy, nerdy, alienated pre-Net teenage boys. Now, hostile jerks can flame people on the Net. Before, they could only read sci-fi books, build model planes and erector sets, but mostly, feast on comics and dream of becoming more powerful. In the 21st century, they can download, program and game, but in the 50s and 60s, comic books and rock-and-roll were prominent among the few accessible forms of popular culture for individualists with brain cells, a cheap, simple pleasure that cost a dime, then a quarter. How shockingly primitive when compared to the world of the computer nerd or hacker. Mainstream culture was dull, religiously appropriate and homogenized. Comic books and rock music were rebellious, subversive and naturally came under murderous fire from parents, teachers and politicians. Before, they could only read comics and fantasize about becoming more powerful. Elaborate ratings systems and restrictive codes eventually suffocated the comics' angry, biting spirit and made them as bland as network TV -- a cultural loss and free-speech outrage heading soon to a computer near you -- but not before Marvel and other comic creators cranked out some classic yarns, from Spider-Man and Batman to the X-Men and other superheroic tales. What makes these stories so popular and enduring? Perhaps because they all embody certain themes. There's the split-personality hero, usually a nerd who acquires great powers but at enormous cost, who always gets something and loses something. He gets to zip along past New York City skyscrapers, for instance, but we know he isn't likely to end up with the girl. Or, he lives in a mansion and drives a Batmobile, but he's depressed and lonely. Or he's a mutant wolverine with fingers of steel who can't ever have a casual beer with his pals. He cherishes his powers, but we know he can't ever be comfortable with his life. Robert Kane's early Batman: The Dark Knight was disturbingly dark and angry before the moralists turned comic books to bland mush. Few people remember that Kane ended his first Batman series with our hero giving up on life and essentially committing suicide by turning himself into the famed Arkham Asylum, where villains from the Joker to the Riddler were being held. Stories like Spider-Man and Batman also have a uniquely American and, until September 11, old-fashioned sense of civics. Spider-man's motto is "With great power comes great responsibility, " a bizarre notion even to hackers. Wouldn't that have seemed clunky before the terrorist attacks? Now it has a c [analse.cx] Read the rest of this comment... [ Reply to This | Parent ] the mythos of Jon Katz (Score:-1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 10, @12:05PM (#3497249) Jon Katz is a wanker. That is all. [ Reply to This | Parent ] heheh (Score:0) by B3ryllium on Friday May 10, @12:05PM (#3497250) (User #571199 Info | http://www.cafepress.com/beryllium/) Behold, the power of cheese. (just joking :)
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Hear, hear! (Score:1)
by AltGrendel (ag-slashdot1 AT exit0 DOT org) on Friday May 10, @12:06PM (#3497251)
(User #175092 Info | http://slashdot.org/)
Say what you want about Katz, I think he got this one right.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:Hear, hear! (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 10, @12:40PM (#3497521)
Katz is a hack -- read the the NYT story
and you'll see he his ideas are not
original -- he even used some of the same
terms (e.g. elephantine).
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Sep 11 (Score:-1)
by Anonymous Cowrad on Friday May 10, @12:06PM (#3497252)
(User #571322 Info | http://msdn.microsof...productinfo/tour.asp)
Does every Katz article have to mention September 11th?
Fuck you, Katz. You're a no-talent hack. Go write for People or something.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:Sep 11 (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 10, @01:02PM (#3497657)
in case of slashdotting..... (Score:-1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 10, @12:05PM (#3497247) Spider-Man shocked analysts and critics last week, racking up a record-breaking $114 million opening weekend for Sam Raimi's warm-hearted adaptation about the web-slinging arachnoid-nerd from Queens who gets the bad guy but really wants the girl. Spider-Man embodies the simplest, most elemental tenets of myth, especially when compared to the increasingly elephantine Skywalker saga, which seems more like a graduate program than a story each time there's a new movie. I'll bet Peter Parker's adventure surpasses the upcoming opening weekend of Attack of the Clones and teaches George Lucas something about the power and nature of myth. Like Star Wars, Spider-Man has the classic elements of a successful myth. A typically American story, it's less pretentious and hyped than Star Wars and more accessible to kids and die-hard comic book buffs, who remember the great, golden age of Marvel Comics. I'm one of them, I was there. The old form still has legs. One film analysts told the Wall Street Journal last week that with the success of Spider-Man, the blockbuster bar has been raised. In fact, he said, this movie has changed Hollywood's perception of what a blockbuster is. That makes it interesting for George Lucas, next up at your local megaplex. It's tough to explain, in the age of cable, gaming, the Net and the Web, just how central comics were for years to a culture of brainy, nerdy, alienated pre-Net teenage boys. Now, hostile jerks can flame people on the Net. Before, they could only read sci-fi books, build model planes and erector sets, but mostly, feast on comics and dream of becoming more powerful. In the 21st century, they can download, program and game, but in the 50s and 60s, comic books and rock-and-roll were prominent among the few accessible forms of popular culture for individualists with brain cells, a cheap, simple pleasure that cost a dime, then a quarter. How shockingly primitive when compared to the world of the computer nerd or hacker. Mainstream culture was dull, religiously appropriate and homogenized. Comic books and rock music were rebellious, subversive and naturally came under murderous fire from parents, teachers and politicians. Before, they could only read comics and fantasize about becoming more powerful. Elaborate ratings systems and restrictive codes eventually suffocated the comics' angry, biting spirit and made them as bland as network TV -- a cultural loss and free-speech outrage heading soon to a computer near you -- but not before Marvel and other comic creators cranked out some classic yarns, from Spider-Man and Batman to the X-Men and other superheroic tales. What makes these stories so popular and enduring? Perhaps because they all embody certain themes. There's the split-personality hero, usually a nerd who acquires great powers but at enormous cost, who always gets something and loses something. He gets to zip along past New York City skyscrapers, for instance, but we know he isn't likely to end up with the girl. Or, he lives in a mansion and drives a Batmobile, but he's depressed and lonely. Or he's a mutant wolverine with fingers of steel who can't ever have a casual beer with his pals. He cherishes his powers, but we know he can't ever be comfortable with his life. Robert Kane's early Batman: The Dark Knight was disturbingly dark and angry before the moralists turned comic books to bland mush. Few people remember that Kane ended his first Batman series with our hero giving up on life and essentially committing suicide by turning himself into the famed Arkham Asylum, where villains from the Joker to the Riddler were being held. Stories like Spider-Man and Batman also have a uniquely American and, until September 11, old-fashioned sense of civics. Spider-man's motto is "With great power comes great responsibility, " a bizarre notion even to hackers. Wouldn't that have seemed clunky before the terrorist attacks? Now it has a c [analse.cx]
Read the rest of this comment...
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Only Stan Lee's Spider-man? (Score:2, Informative)
by XBoyAdv on Friday May 10, @12:06PM (#3497263)
(User #443706 Info | http://slashdot.org/)
What about Steve Ditko?
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:Only Stan Lee's Spider-man? (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 10, @01:04PM (#3497679)
And Jack Kirby, who at the very least designed the outfit.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:Only Stan Lee's Spider-man? (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 10, @01:32PM (#3497900)
Actually, no, Ditko designed the costume. He makes this clear in a few 'articles' on this topic in _The Comics_ newsletter published by Robin Snyder.
Michael Brown
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:Only Stan Lee's Spider-man? (Score:1)
by rhanneken on Friday May 10, @01:41PM (#3497949)
(User #130840 Info)
According to Stan Lee, Steve Ditko design the Spider-Man costume:
"I have always considered Steve Ditko to be Spider-Man's co-creator," Stan Lee wrote in 1999. "Steve's illustrated version of Peter Parker/Spider-Man and his coterie of supporting characters was more compelling and dramatic than I had dared hoped it would be ... Also, it goes without saying that Steve's costume design was an actual masterpiece of imagination. Thanks to Steve Ditko, Spidey's costume has become one of the world's most recognizable visual icons."
That quote comes from a story in the National Post:
"Action Is His Reward [nationalpost.com]", by Jeet Heer
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
What makes (Score:2, Interesting)
by line-bundle on Friday May 10, @12:06PM (#3497264)
(User #235965 Info | file:///dev/urandom)
JonKatz asks: What makes these stories so popular and enduring?
The answer is simple: advertising.
JonKatz, if you looked around you would have seen how much advertising and tie-ins there were to these movies.
I do not think they in any way qualify as modern myth. Something more likely to have that honour is `Lord of the Rings' (the book, not the movie! I hated the movie).
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
SPECIAL RECIPE FOR JOHN KATZ (Score:-1)
by RecipeTroll on Friday May 10, @12:14PM (#3497325)
(User #572375 Info | http://www.bettycrocker.com/ | Last Journal: Wednesday April 10, @11:52AM)
GRILLED JERK CHICKEN
For jerk marinade
3 scallions, chopped
4 large garlic cloves, chopped
1 small onion, chopped
4 to 5 fresh Scotch bonnet or habanero chile, stemmed and seeded
1/4 cup fresh lime juice
2 tablespoons soy sauce
3 tablespoons olive oil
1 1/2 tablespoons salt
1 tablespoon packed brown sugar
1 tablespoon fresh thyme leaves
2 teaspoons ground allspice
2 teaspoons black pepper
3/4 teaspoon freshly grated nutmeg
1/2 teaspoon cinnamon
For chicken
4 chicken breast halves with skin and bones (3 lb), halved crosswise
2 1/2 to 3 lb chicken thighs and drumsticks
Much server work looks like this: request comes in from network, appropriate program gets loaded, maybe talks to a database, runs for less than a second, returns results to network, exits. Typically, a large fraction of the resources used go into the "appropriate program gets loaded" step, doing the same startup ritual over and over.
There are two UNIX/Linux solutions to that startup overhead problem. One is to build the transaction program into the network application (as in Apache/mod_perl/php). Note that this uses an interpreter to protect the network application from bugs in transaction programs, which is a major performance hit.
The other approach is to use the regular UNIX/Linux program launch facilities to run a separate program for each transaction (as in CGI programs.) This is safer and easier to maintain, because the CGI programs each run in their own processes, but the cost of program loading (which might include initializing a Perl or Java environment) often dwarfs the cost of doing the useful work.
A mainframe transaction processor basically maintains process images which are ready to run a transaction, with all loading complete. When a process is needed to run a transaction, it's made by copying one of those process images (with read-only or copy-on-write sharing of pages) and launching it to do the job. The new process runs for a short period and exits. This is a facility that Linux/UNIX lack, because they were intended for interactive use, not server-side transactions.
Because Linux has copy-on-write semantics for fork(II), it's should be possible to do a high performance transaction facility under Linux. A transaction program initializes itself by loading everything it needs, but without any per-transaction data available. It then goes into a loop waiting for work, and on each request, forks off a copy of itself to do the job. Each copy does one transaction and exits. If it crashes or gets corrupted, only one transaction is affected. Note that there are no expensive exec(II) calls involved in starting a new transaction.
Has this been done? It's obvious enough that somebody has probably tried it.
i have not much experience on linux. the fact that it is still a spare-time project ruled completely at the whim of Linus himself i find very annoying. if he knew what would be best for the community he would assemble a trusted team tat could control the kernel. at home i have recently switched to BeOS. okay i know it is dead but i'm following the open BeOS project. look good. linux is just not up to par with BeOS. man that system rocks. Interfacer. P.S. the biggest threat to linux are the zealots.
That ain't big iron! The only system that runs both of those is the Alpha. And the Alpha ain't a mainframe.
Best Slashdot Co
First of all, way to go Slashdot, this article has been out for quite some time. It's received a lot of attention on the Linux 390 mailing list as a Sun FUD campaign as it places a fully loaded z900 on par with 80 Dell servers and the zSeries in general on par with mid-range Sun equipment (and others).
;) so it is my job to know about what a z800 can do for us.
First, I'm fairly qualified to talk about what the zServer can do. For those of you who don't remember, I'm one of the guys that helped win a z800 for Clarkson University that will be used in our Open Source Institute. I'm also the technical lead for COSI (whatever that means
Some history, Clarkson University has always had a very good relationship with IBM: they employ a large amount of Clarkson students and graduates (including me, in the Extreme Blue program. So if you think that biases my opinion, well too bad as I've talked with the guys making sure that Linux runs and is fully integrated on the Linux platform and one of the original Linux S390 authors Boas Betzler.
All of these people have real experience with what the zSeries can do, as do I since I've seen it in action. A zServer is unique in the sense that you can (with the right model) run Linux S390, VM, zOS and other guest operating systems in Logical Partitions. These all act independantly of one another just as if they were seperate machines on a network. This is great if you have DB2 with maybe a web frontend because both of those machines can talk at memory speed via HiperSockets and the only outside link is the network connection to the web server, which is at Gigabit speed (did I mention that you can do full speed gigabit with one of these things on multiple interfaces?).
This article basically says that you can take a midrange Sun server and do everything that a z800 can do but much better. I don't know of any Sun Server that can run N Linux clients in a VM at full speed.
They aren't the solution to every problem, but a zServer certainly is a better solution that what is presented in the article. I really don't have the time to go in to detail with everything as it's a lengthy article but suffice it to say that this is no where near 100% accurate.
At least this site will inform the user that story content has changed...
-Justin
That's enough posting for now lads, there're trolls afoot.
Linux news post on /. today.
Report on something else you silly homos! Didn't Microsoft anally violate somebody today?
He doesn't say what mainframe he was using, but IIRC, there exists for RS/6000 and AS/400's (yeah, I know the RS/6000 isn't really a mainframe) "co-processor" boards that are essentially funky PC motherboards that run the PC-based OS (in this case, NT), and have drivers to use the mainframes resources (drives, ports, etc) and translate them into the PC equivalents.
Most of the time, these boards have their own memory - some even have thier own hard drives (I would imagine there are some which are simply a TN5250 hack for comm with the mainframe, and only draw power from the backplane - all memory, ports, and drives mounted to the module).
In other words, NT doesn't actually run on the mainframe, or VM - but rather on a dedicated processor board. I know these solutions exist for IBM hardware - I wouldn't doubt that there are similar solutions for other mainframe manufacturers as well (either by the manufacturer or licensed third parties).
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
I guess I'll stick with my old P-200 for the moment....
w00t! Linux has always look good...
You could just e-mail them and let them know they accidently left out a stripe on their american flag graphic, since everyone knows it has 13 stripes. I'm sure it was just an accident. I recall people selling flags after september 11th in a local parking lot with only 12 stripes on them as a cheap scam. Just a stupid mistake.
I'll grant the point of the paragraph - that UNIX process/destruction occurs more often that MVS address space creation or even task creation. And I'll buy that some "UNIX CPUs" can handle multiple instruction streams. But have any really implemented a single-cycle context switch?
I checked, and yes, the IBM site did say "31-bit" mode. Won't this break a lot of Linux apps?
Mainframes - designed for the benefit of the machine.
PCs - designed for the benefit of the user.
Unix - designed for the benefit of hunt-and-peck administrators and obscure language designers.
This article was in linux journal about two years ago, but most of the discussion is still fairly interesting to read. He brings up a lot of very good points and has some interesting numbers to back him up.
There is another article on ZDNET link that roasts Linux on the mainframe. I think people were too harsh toward sun when they published their report, but the reality is that Linux is not ready for the mainframe YET.
mainframe Linux is that most mainframes don't have USB ports or good drivers. This sux cause then I can't plug in my Canon Powershot digital camera and use the pictures to make christmas cards for my grandmother. Also, Printshop Deluxe doesn't run on my S/390. SUX
I work for a large shop and here are my experiences running Linux on the Mainframe.
First, I'm a mainframe person. I like the mainframe. I've used Linux at home for about 6 years so I was chosen to be on a "proof of concept" with running Linux under VM. I've been doing OS/390 & z/OS support for about 4 years. I'm in the "30 & under" crowd and I've seen both the Unix & mainframe side of support.
We've played with TurboLinux, SuSE, & the RedHat beta for the zSeries. We're running zVM 4.2.
First, lots of things work really well. It was strange seeing the normal Linux boot messages appearing in zVM. We've been primarily using the 2.4 series kernel, but we have tested things with the 2.2 series. We've played with Oracle, WebSphere, DB2 Connect, Samba, Apache, IBM HTTPD server. The only technical problem we really had was Samba caused kernel crashes. Some patches from the IBM z/Linux site fixed it.
The biggest problems we have had are philosophical and percepteion based. Here are some of the difficulties:
We had to force our customers to a shared outage window. Even VM needs to be IPLed every year or so. If they can't tolerate a 6 hour window every quarter or 6 months, we won't support them on the zSeries. A second box could make it a true zero downtime machine, but we are initially targeting the low usage, non critical machines.
Lots of people have the delusion that the zSeries processor is hundreds of times faster than other processors. It isn't. It's fast, but not several magnitudes faster than the other processors out there. It's also not designed for heavy computational applications. Don't try, you'll hate the results. It can be done on a limited basis, but don't try and compute PI. It works better on I/O related applications which are traditional mainframe strengths.
A lot of the code on the zSeries for Linux is the first generation to be released there. A lot of the performance perks for that platform are not there yet. If there is enough adoption, ISVs will make the performance better, but right now a lot of them are testing the water.
Some people have the illusion that if you take a piece of crap application on Solaris or NT and run it on Linux, it will run better. The OS typically doesn't make your piece of crap any better.
When people buy an Intel or Solaris server, they typically get the most memory & disk space they can afford. This is the worst thing to do under VM. We had a lot of people want 2GB of RAM and 100GB of disk space. Later analysis showed they could survive with much less memory (some as little as 128M) and used almost none of the disk. The reason for this is simple. Whey you buy a Sun or Intel server, upgrading them is a pain, so you do the pain up front. Under VM you can change the amount of memory & allocate more disk very easily. This was a big learning curve for people, and not just the Unix people. The major difference we found in the memory is because Linux uses it as disk cache. On the zSeries the hardware has lots of it's cache on on it.
People needed to understand they were sharing CPU & memory. Performance tuning has a very big impact. On Intel or Sun who cares if your application is looping endlessly. On VM everyone cares. Lots of our Unix sysadmins really hated this fact and the customers couldn't fathom it. You want to put applications with LOW USAGE on this platform. The idea behind sharing is that nobody needs all of the CPU all of the time. If you run at 100% on a 4-way Pentium CPU, you won't like sharing CPU with dozens of other virtual servers and they won't like sharing with you. This was probably the most difficult thing to stress to the users.
This isn't emulating Intel. It took a while to get people to understand that VM wasn't emulating an Intel machine and that the nice pre-compiled intel binaries don't work. Lots of people went out looking for software from ISVs and the ISVs said "Sure we support Linux". What they didn't say is "We support Linux/390". There is a very big difference. Linux is not just Linux on Intel and it took some education to get this through to the users.
Once we convinced people that it isn't running Intel, they tried to recompile their favorite programs and found out that for some applications a "simple" recompile wasn't enough. I would imagine that the power-pc folks had similar problems, but some programs take a little investigation.
There were some really nice aspects of running on a zSeries.
Disaster Recovery is easier. Mainframe DR has been established for decades and it isn't terribly different with Linux on the mainframe. Much more simple than having dozens of individual machines to recover.
The hardware never fails. It may be expensive, but CPUs have a 30 year mean time to failure, the disk is all raid, multiple IO chanels help ensure there is not single point of failure. Hardware can typically be swapped out without taking an outage. CPUs can by dynamically added.
If you want to copy an existing virtual server and make a test copy, that can be done in minutes. That makes it really nice for developers who want to do the "what if I do this" tests.
VM's programmable operator facility makes for some nice system automation. You can also create Rexx scripts for your operations so they never even need to logon to Linux to do certain work.
Creating a new server is easy. No more running through the install screens. Once you have one customized, just use it as a template for new servers.
We were able to have certain drives shared as read-only across all images. This makes support a little easier. We made one Linux have the drive read-write. When we changed it there, we just unmounted & remounted it on the other images (a Rexx script made that painless) and it was magically everywhere. We can even take down the read-write linux to be sure something isn't accidentally changed. We've been experimenting with sharing lots of Linux mount points this way. We estimate we can concentrate about 100GB down to 2 GB which cuts down the overall cost. The majority of code on all Linux images are the same and will tolerate being shared, so as long as your environment is stable and you do some planning, you can dramatically cut down on disk usage. The amount of disk you save is directly related to the number of images your machine can handle.
The virtual-linux to virtual-linux IP traffic happends at memory-to-memory speed. It's also very nice not to worry about network issues when trying to debug a problem because there is no physical network.
Recovery is easier if an image won't boot. Just attach the drive to another, running image and fix the problem. No need to physically go to the machine.
Sorry to ramble, but this is what we have found. Linux on the zSeries has it's place and does work, but it's not a solution to every problem. Few things are.
I believe many of the scalability problems are also
due to no asych I/O , at least for db apps. I believe they are implementing it in linux 2.6, though
it is relative to enerprise OS's not pieces of shit like windows
soory but BeoS is not a good server OS. youre beef is with KDE and GNOME
What's wrong with it? It has worked very well for me and many other people I know. Very low latency, low overhead, good bandwidth, support for most of the new TCP and IP options.
Are talking about things like VLAN support, massive numbers of device aliases, or strange hardware like token ring -- or what?
Isn't that the old processor that HP used to make?
sorry bud, but mainframes run 70% of corporate data still.
o ri alsID=59
check out
http://www.esj.com/departments/article.asp?Edit
Let's take a reasonable guess: the average Slashdot user has no experience whatsoerver with mainframes or corporate data centers. Better stick to stories about ATTACK OF THE CLONES and so on. At least those topics offer something within the life experience of the average /. reader.
"I think the best that's been done is called the 'tacky' bit (chmod +t) on an executable. Traditionally, that left the executable loaded 'in swap', presumably for faster startup."
To get this effect cheaply and repeatably in Linux, copy the relevant binaries under a tmpfs mounted directory.
Market research company Meta Group takes a swing at Linux, saying that Linux mainframes will soon be irrelevant and that the OS isn't mature enough to handle critical business applications.
Your the one that not MATURE!
I've noticed that whenever Meta group report on Linux they always denigrate it. There have been articles on ZDNET and similar places where positive things have been said by Gartner, IDC etc., but then at the end there are some words of doom from Meta Group: "it may not be ready", "there might be problems", "you can't yet run Linux on 1000 processor machines...".
For example, look at this article about Linux in investment banks. Positive news all the way through until:
But Meta Group programme director Ashim Pal says the cost of the platform is not the only consideration. 'The operating system is a relatively small part of the total cost of ownership. Purely focusing on the cost of the platform is deluded,' he said.
If you go their web-site and look for recent documents featuring Linux in the title you will find:
- Linux on the Mainframe: Nice Place to Visit, But... ... Linux Management: More Hype than Substance
- No Advantage From Linux PDAs
- Choose Palm or Pocket PC - Linux Only for Custom Apps
- Linux PDAs Offer Alternative for Low-End and Specialized Markets
- Companies Should Consider Limited Server-Based Linux Implementations
- Microsoft Criticizes Linux as Operating System Issues Move to Web Services Level
-
- Linux Dreams of Management Promotion.,
- Linux: Application Server Tiers or Tears?
I guess you can make your own minds up. BTW, Meta Group have been having a few problems themselves recently.
First I must say that my story is a long time ago (like the author of the article). I was an operator on an IBM 3083 17 years ago and left a few months after they had installed VM. We had the mainframe connected to the comanies bottlings plants across the whole country (running system 36 minis) and during the day, especially later in the afternoon most of the various plant's accounts/processing data would come in. The night shift would then start the accounting and processing jobs around 7PM and run them through the night and a few hours before the morning shift came in the Storage backup system would run (HSM) and then during the day the coders would do their thing etc.
The whole point of VM (and the mainframe) was that it is optimised for business systems, AFAIK, and unlike heavy scientific computing loads, there is seldom a need for incredible processing power in the CPU, but there is a need for distributed processes and extremely good I/O since most business tasks are often thrashing around on the disk getting and updating customer/financial info etc.
I don't think the zSeries would be doing as well as it is (eBay, Swedish and Japanese telcos etc) if there wasn't some advantage to this system. Probably, what sways a lot of these deals is that if your machine has any problems IBM will have a technician there pronto and their staff (at least in those days) were very professional and well trained.
I didn't get the part of the article about swapping to a RAM disk. That doesn't really make a lot of sense.
But, for what its worth, I have used Linux on an S/390 for software development. I found it performed just fine as an interactive environment and no different than any other multi-user system.
Sure, sometimes you notice a slowdown under heavy load, but it was very rare and short-lived.
As for application portability it seemed to have no problem with ANSI C code and POSIX functionality. It's Linux, as long as your code doesn't do nutty things that are not guaranteed by ANSI, Linux/390 functions just like a large Sun or HP machine with lots of people compiling and editing.
hm. the article on lw.com states that sendmail can handle about 2 million boxes on an IBM Mainframe. Well, according to this article at ibm.com, a Mainframe of the same architecture can handle 250+ Million of Users (IMAP, POP3 and SMTP). Guess Linux can step back in this specific case against the not really well known TPF Operating System (currently used at the IT Farms of Airlines and large Banks).
Myth: Open Source is written by heterosexuals.
Fact: All open source development is done by raging homosexuals. The more flaming examples include Anal Cox, Linus Turdballs, Eric "Ass-Reaming" Raymond, and the entire Slashdot crew. The ringleader of the slashdotters, a man named CmdrTaco, engages in a practice known as "Taco-snotting," along with his faggot-buddies Jeff "Homos" Bates and CowBoiKneel.
Myth: Open Source is written for heterosexuals.
Fact: Using Open Source software can cause suppressed homosexual fantasies to surface, leading to all out flaming faggotry within 6-8 weeks. Anecdotes of otherwise hetero men turning queer are far too numerous to count, but a few examples stand out. In one case, a man was arrested loitering outside an elementary school and making sexual overtures to several children: he quickly confessed that shortly after installing the Mozilla browser on his computer, he began to have uncontrollable urges to, to put it simply, have his cock sucked off by little boys. He soon met several other like-minded men through discussions on the "Bugger Zilla" mailing list (all already homosexuals), who together kidnapped a total of seven children whom they brought back to their apartment and sodomized. The other two men are still at large and believed to still be using Mozilla.
Myth: Open Source is multicultural.
Fact: Open Source is openly racist.
Myth: Open Source is democratic.
Fact: Open Source is controlled by a few narrow-minded zealots (mentioned throughout this post), most of whom are either Communists, Stalinists, Nazis, or Fascists. Additionally, Open Source supports terrorism.
Myth: Open Source is tolerant of religious preferences.
Fact: Open Source developers regularly engage in "holy wars" over the superiority of various OS projects, such as the emacs program (preferred by Christians) versus vi (used mostly by neo-pagans and Satanists); or the KDE desktop (a favorite among Muslims) versus the GNOME project (particularly favored by Jews). Posts initiating "crusades" or "jihads" against other developers can be found regularly throughout the newsgroups and mailing lists.
Myth: Open Source is tolerant of sexual preference.
Fact: See above. Either you are a homo, you become a homo, or you never visit Richard Stallman alone in his office and hope to God you never meet him on the street at night.
Myth: Open Source is tolerant of political differences.
Fact: Open Source is an anarcho-communist philosophy bent on the destruction of capitalism. The very same Richard Stallman, a man whose name is disturbingly reminiscent of Stalin, has stated several times in public that his vision includes the "subjugation of all who own intellectual properties under the jackboot of the GPL." The GPL is a pernicious piece of literature lifted straight from Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto, and is fortunately banned in many democratic nations.
_____
© 2002 Serial Troller. Permission to reproduce this document is granted provided that you send all the bukkake porn you can find to serialtroller@hotmail.com.
STOP ME BEFORE I POST AGAIN!
Linux just doesn't work as well as FreeBSD. IBM would be better off supporting FreeBSD.
FreeBSD scales way better and is more stable than *linux. Spread the word. We need to let people know there's something better out there.
That was quite a few keywords there. Definitely a varied combination. If they'd been assembled a bit better, your post might have made sense! Next time, link each word to E2 for added mod points.
Keywords:
Linux, GNU, mainframe, NT, OpenBSD, USB, multithreading, kernel
There were others, but you get the idea. Now, which ones don't belong?
At least NT, OpenBSD, and USB. Of course, those are the majority of your argument (and the rest of your post was simply unrelated fluff).
Yours was definitely a Slashdot post for the ages.
FreeBSD also has COW and is more stable and faster than Linux. IBM should switch to FreeBSD because FreeBSD is truly free.
Alpha was a 64-bit chip in 1992. DEC sued Intel over the contents of the Alpha, and Intel paid them a large sum of money in settlement. Then, DEC sold itself (what was left) to Compaq. HP is planning on dropping Tru64, don't know if it's planning on dropping the Alpha. Hope not -- it's a beautiful design and only gotten better over the years. It's a shame IBM didn't buy the Alpha. Also a shame that DEC never knew how to sell.
Mainframe UNIX is an oxymoron.
Linux and s390 isnt a swiss arm knife, if you want raw cpu process go to RISC.
IBM line.
Xseries, INTEL.
PSeries, RS/6000 P=PERFORMANCE
ISeries, AS/400 I=Integration
ZSeries, S390/Zseries Zero Stop.
The Mainframe advantage is handle large amount of data, impressive IO access and uncomparable stability.
"Thank you for your interest. We are performing system maintenance at this time. LinuxWorld will return shortly."
I've pushed hard to have Linux put on my client's mainframe. The mainframe has superior storage management and security so it's the best place to keep massive amounts of data(massive to the PC mindset). My client has a need to have certain reports available forever and the reports in question are about 40 gig in size for the first year. This has been expected to grow quite a bit in the next few years to something like 100 to 200 Gig a year. Since the reports for the most part will not be accessed often, it makes no sense to build an NT box just to serve up these reports when they're requested(a Linux box on a server machine is out of the question in this shop--politics).
The users will request their report on the Linux ghost box and the Linux system will request the file from MVS which likely will reside on cart, I mean tape. The tape subsystems are extremely fast and the hardware is already budgeted and in use. The NT folks wanted all sorts of money for a new server, OS, etc.. it just wasn't worth it.
The hardest part is selling the idea, I mentioned it to the manager I report to and he said, "What's Linux?" I'm not kidding. This IT manager had never even heard of Linux. I found that the best way to make sure it happened was to go ahead and just make a prototype. Systems programming on the mainframe side were enthusiastic about loading it and got it going in short order(they want to screw the NT people anyway). It not only works but retrieval from archive is seamless and quick. Security is easy to handle because the users are already defined in RACF with certain rights, we just need to add those datasets to their IDs. After we're done there should be no more manual intervention(which supposedly was needed with the NT solution)
Other groups at the client site are now aware of what we are doing and would like to publish their own reports on the intranet from the mainframe without having to go through the hassle of dealing with the NT groups. Since departments in this company are not charged for their mainframe usage but are charged for any NT servers they need, it's a no brainer for management-- once you show them it works. You often have to lead these people by the hand. You also need to engage systems programming. Those guys have all sorts of neat soultions to problem but they are terrible when it comes to marketing their solutions.
Of course Linux TCP/IP is multithreaded.
This is why the 2.4.0 kernel took so
long to release.
Of course Linux TCP/IP can pass multiple
packets at the same time. This has been
the case from day one, before the 1.0.x
kernel was even released.
Linux beats Slowaris up to at least 8 CPUs,
and completely roasts Slowaris on 1 CPU.
The earlier poster made the mistake of confusing NT itself with applications on NT. NT itself was a native compile for the Alpha (as it had been earlier for PowerPC until that CPU also was deemed to be unusable/unsellable for NT). Of course, this created a problem, because almost nobody created native Alpha binary versions of their applications. So DEC had a OS "smart" emulator that worked as was described (e.g., more you used it the better the speed). But this emulator was used for i86 binaries running on Alpha, not for native code.
One of the avantages of NT Alpha was it was a cheaper box than Unix Alpha (or at least it was when I still worked for DEC). Still, it was always more expensive than the comparable x86 32-bit boxes. Still, if Microsoft had produced NT 5 in 1998 as planned in both 32- and 64-bit versions, then the Alpha would have been the only platform besides IA-64 that would have been available, but 4 years later this is all just old news (and getting more useless every day, except for the "learn by example" of what not to do if you want your Tech company to continue living).
Regarding the suit between DEC and Intel, my money was on Intel having "borrowed" IP from the Alpha team, especially the wetware they hired away from DEC to learn how to build high-speed silicon. At any rate, I don't believe Intel paid for the suit, but for the Alpha FAB in Hudson Ma., which would still have been worth some $$$ prior DEC to getting sold to Compaq. This freed DEC of some debt, as well as having the cloud of the underlying lawsuit eliminated prior to the buyout.
Given "The Register" comments a few weeks back about even 2nd Gen IPF CPU's merely being almost equal to current RISC CPU's because the complier engineers are still trying to figure out how to build EPIC-savvy compilers, I'd say we still have a ways to go before we see the IPF CPU's killing off the other CPUs. Remember, Compaq declared Alpha "Dead" just before the HP merger announcement, just like DEC sold off the Alpha FAB just before the Compaq merger announcement. Lots of this just seems to be business, not technical.
Intel has the megabucks needed to continue building FABs; neither HP or Compaq do, and certainly not now after the merger. Both went "fabless" just like SUN, and for the same reason. This ties them to the IA-64 EPIC architecture in a "bet-the-company" fashion, so it is also no surprise that Compaq sent some of its best Alpha Compiler people over to Intel as part of the Alpha death announcment; Intel needs good 64-bit Compiler designers, and the Alpha team was some of the best around.
And for all those reading this and thinking - "Why should I care about the Alpha?" just remember. Alpha CPUs used to win benchmarks by wide margins once upon a time, especially floating point ones. And this was at a time when all the other CPUs were still 32-bit (1993-1994 - except MIPS), so they had an advantage over Alpha - no extra overhead from doing everything in 64-bit mode. So the Alpha's won even though they were "handicapped" by the 64-bit overhead, at least until DEC sold the fab, and Compaq took over. Just go back and look up the benchmark results - Alphas stayed at the top or at least competitive until their speed stopped rising, because of lack of investment.
So all you SUN lovers out there - keep your eye on the "Solaris on IA-64" story; if HP/Q get the IPF CPUs competitive (with appropriate compilers of course), they will have a significant price advantage over SPARC. IBM of course owns its own fabs, and had "built-in" market share for the z-Series (Mainframe) and i-Series (AS/400) boxen, so it can still make high-end RISC CPUs. I just wonder how SUN will be able to continue with SPARC past this next generation coming.
Of course, your mileage may vary ...
**AC**
Well yes, the alpha put up good benchmark numbers, but it also ran about 5X the speed of the competition. I think that the numbers have sess to do with compilers and more to do with fabs.
Yea apple jelly is better than grape jelly, but there is no need to spread the word; there is not enough difference.
If you still have the article somewhere can you please post a link to it?
Thank you