Slashdot Mirror
A Look at IRIX 6.5.17
XFS writes "OSNews got their hands on the latest version of IRIX, 6.5.17 (released in August), and they have published an interesting article about it and they explain why IRIX was and still is, one of the best workstation Unices out there. Especially when it comes to multimedia/GL performance. I hope SGI will do something with IRIX though, as they seem to have let it fall behind and be one of these great technologies that get lost through various corporate focus shifts..."
Free Mac Mini
And now we get all these posts from guys who know a bit of Linux who think they know *NIX because they post on slashdot.
Not sure what this is implying, but it seems to be a surprisingly common misconception that MacOSX has vector based artwork. Not so. GNOME can do, and I think KDE3.1 can as well, via SVG. MacOS icons though are just bitmaps in a variety of sizes, with some scaling/blending algorithms applied.
The SGI desktop is of course based on a heavily modified commercial X Server. And here I will stop for a second, get a big breath and say: 'wow'. I have never seen an X server being so fast, on a 5-year old machine (no matter if this is an SGI machine or not).
I'd kind of expect this given that IRIX comes as a bundle with the hardware. When you choose the hardware as well as the software you can of course optimize the drivers a lot, so you will get good speeds out of it. XFree has to deal with a lot of different hardware, and the driver manufacturers are sometimes less than helpful. Probably worth remember that IRIX won't have some of the newer X extensions like XRender.
SGI was very kind to send us in this dual Octane 2x195 Mhz MIPS machine accompanied with a 24" SGI-branded Trinitron monitor.
Otherwise, they would have had to shell out a whole $799.00 on eBay for one.
What did SGI do, pull one from the junk bin?
They should have sent some relatively modern hardware....
What exactly do you want SGI to do with IRIX? Put it in a box, shrinkwrap it, and make it run your overclocked AMD chip-of-the-week? Probably won't happen.
Since IRIX 6.5, SGI has continued its promise to release quarterly updates. Each release introduces changes to the feature and maintenance stream.
I guess I'm confused as to what your hopes for IRIX are.
I haven't read the OSNEWS.com article yet, but I hope it isn't one of those "OS review" articles where they look at the installer and give it a rating.
-David
IRIX Machines are huge in scientific computing.
However, since SGI announced that they wouldn't support IRIX anymore, everyone has concluded that they need to shift over to Linux machines.
Most people I know buy Dell machines. The cost savings is actually less of a concern for scientists (although it is an issue,) than keeping up with the state of the art.
If SGI released their IRIX source code, that would do a lot to help them recover their scientific market share; scientists would pay the extra money for SGI hardware if they aren't worried that support for the OS is going to evaporate entirely, and a Linux distro with lots of SGI-specific code imported from IRIX ought to fit that bill nicely. I'm a biologist, though, so maybe I'm missing something.
The good and new comes from no quarter where it is looked for, and is always something different from what is expected.
Recipe for technology article:
1 paragraph fluff
1 paragraph spin
1/2 cup FUD
Mix in HTML editor.
Publish.
Seriously, this article is light on details, and filled with inane comments like "the OS looks dated". While there were some good comments, half of the time it was gushing over the X server, or cheering over the fact that the author can run XMMS. What about performance? Applications? Hardware compatibility/expandibility? Talk to us about the box - does SGI/IRIX know about USB, for instance? FireWire?
Details please..
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
They just hired Jon "maddog" Hall to 'help SGI to sponsor and encourage a community-based "Extreme Linux" movement around SGI's NUMAFlex architecture.'
Got brain?
This is a fine example that X11 is a good graphics-server.
Although alot of X11 bashing has been going on IRIX shows us that X11 is actually a very viable and capable graphics-server and certainly gives the finger to all those X11 implementations which have been done BAD.
So please, next time you go and blame your sucky graphics on X11, take a good look at the implementation of it in your system.
Simple fact: Irix is elegant. The 4DWM is far superior to almost anything that you can put on linux ( poor 5DWM project went away.. it was the salvation) For the end user 4DWM was simple, uncomplicated, and most of all fast.. I personally have several IRIX boxen that I wouldn't trade in for anything. The installation of free software http://freeware.sgi.com couldn't be made easier. recompiling the kernel ( one command) and the fact that when I stick in a second display sub-system it automatically sets it up for me. True the machines are starting to show wear and age, and for the most current hardware you are paing a fortune, but if you NEED a ferrari you pay for a ferrari, you don't take a Yugo ( PC) and stick a ferrari logo on it... There is the whole fact that IRIX is expensive, but you do pay for what you get. I can effectively use a R4000 or R4400 with the latest version of IRIX, and it runs just fine. Try that with a stock install of Linux on a machine that is 6 or 7 years old, you won't be happy.
I think it depends on your point of reference. When I worked as a student Unix lab luser, we just acquired a bunch of Indigos with 4.0.5f, and it seems fairly stable compared to what we were running in the lab before (HP diskless workstations (not even SWAP local.. don't ask)). If anything would happen, it typically would be a graphics hang curable with the Vulcan Death Grip.
The last job had a handful of systems (an Origin and a few Octanes): one Octane had semi-frequent graphics hangs but I think that was hardware on its way out. The other Octanes never had problems... and this was running typically pissey software (HKS Abaqus, PATRAN, ANSYS, ProE), either locally or over X/network (again, don't ask). These were systems running 6.5.x (all were at
My biggest beef with IRIX was the piss-poor default security. 4.0.x releases were HORRIBLE: things have become better in time but SGI's security for these boxes is still kinda shoddy at best. And with cheaper PC graphics hardware (or cheaper workstation-level graphics like HP's fx cards) SGI can no longer rest on their 'visualization' laurels.
-fester
-'fester
What killed SGI for us was their hideous treatment of customers. We had some SGI boxes with 10-Base T as web servers in the past. When we went to look at a 100-Base T card we discovered that all SGI wanted to do was to sell us new boxes. They priced then network card around $6000.
I read the article, but didn't bother to submit a story to /. because I found the article quite bad. IRIX may be quite good, but the author is all enthusiastic about features that I wouldn't think great wins myself. OK, you might dismiss this as a difference in taste, but I still think the author could look around a little more.
...
``The Guest account has quite some privillages by default, I was even able to install software, for example some KDE libraries and applications, so it was good enough to keep me going.''
It sounds like the author applauds this. Think about it, though. Would you really have Natalie Netuser log in to your box and have her install her own software? Apart from the security issues (which might not be there...I don't know exactly what kind of software you can or can't install), I think you'd better order that new hard drive already.
``The great thing about IRIX is that a lot of open source applications have been ported over to the proprierty X11 of IRIX''
Right. So IRIX is great because it can run all those open source apps that were developed with Linux and BSD in mind? OK, this might make IRIX better than some other proprietary OSen, but that doesn't necessarily make it great.
``X just works''
Yes, and so it would on Linux if the OS came preinstalled and tailored to the machine you ordered. That's not a feature of IRIX, it's the logical result of writing software for specific hardware (which, IMHO, shouldn't be necessary - standards should take care of that).
``Because there is one IRIX, one company behind it, and very specific versions, there are virtually no dependancy problems. Installations just work.''
Because there is one RedHat Linux | Windows | Mac OS, one monopoly behind it,
I mean, this sort of Just Works (WOW) goes against flexibility and freedom of choice. I don't know about IRIX, but I know that RedHat's packaging system gets confused when you install software via other means. Windows is a disaster (install from _what_ source?), and Apple is getting it right with OS X. ports rules!
``The window manager included on IRIX is the 4Dwm, while the toolkit used is the king of the Unix toolkits, Motif.''
I don't like 4Dwm, but I can see why others would. But Motif the king of Unix toolkits? Come on, speak for yourself, man. I don't even have Motif installed. All apps I use are either console or GTK, and there are a number of apps that would be cool to have, but not really worth installing Qt for. Motif _was_ king, yes, but it's reign is over.
---
Timeout error: Operator fell asleep while waiting for NT to complete boot sequence
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
IRIX might have enterprise-level performance, but it suffers enormously in the usability department. I work in a lab where IRIX is standard, because 64-bit memory addressing and extreme graphics performance using ImageVision is a must. However, I keep running into issues with the development tools. Most impotantly, SGI's cc (c compiler) is slow and hard to customize flags on, especially for debugging. Furthermore, frequently, if my program commits a memory fault, it receives a SIGKILL rather than a segfault which makes it very difficult to debug (this usually happens if the malloc pool gets corrupted or while using ImageVision).
The ImageVision library (an OpenGL-based image processing system) hsa great performance and features. However, it refuses to link with programs not built with cc (thus, no gcc!). Furthermore, programs that seem to follow spec mysteriously die with a SIGKILL during deallocation. I certainly realise that I might be doing something wrong in the way I call the library, but it does not provide any error
message, exception, or fault.
Finally, IRIX standard header files are a colossal mess and almost impossible to use. Standard C and C++ objects are casually redefined throughout the header structure.
All of her (his? its?) articles are completely myopic, focusing on "how nice/useable" is this as a desktop.
Evaluating Irix on its UI alone is completely useless.
I do, however, agree that benchmarks are often quite useless. The way it any machine performs is highly dependant on what mix of jobs/applications you plan to run on it.
Go Badgers! -- #include "std/disclaimer.h"
crash-resistant, high-performance file system. Ever heard of "XFS"??? It's journaled and has been around almost longer than the FreeBSD project.
First multithreaded kernel: Um.... Right... Multithreaded kernels have been around for probably a decade if not more. FreeBSD is hardly the first. Irix has had kernel threads for ages. The first reference I can find to them is in '95 (and I suspect they have been around longer than that) when FreeBSD didn't even run on multiprocessor systems.
First "compact" kernel: What is a "compact" kernel? The FreeBSD kernel is a monolithic BSD kernel. Irix is a monolithic System V kernel. Even Linux is a monolithic kernel (of Linus + other's design). Microkernels haven't lived up to their initial hype (though MacOS X uses one), but neither they nor monolithic kernels are "obsolete".
Now don't get me wrong, FreeBSD is a great OS. I have run it in the past and regularly use it. But it doesn't run on 1024 processors, have multiple tens of terabytes of storage in a single filesystem, and manage a terabyte of RAM. It's not designed for that. Irix is.
Go Badgers! -- #include "std/disclaimer.h"