Slashdot Mirror
IBM Calls Linux "Logical Successor" To AIX
pknoll writes "Though it probably won't happen soon, IBM is talking about Linux eventually replacing AIX. The article at Globe Technology states there are IBM folks working on 'chips for 2007' systems, and the viewpoint projected is described as 'multidecade,' but it's an interesting view into the future of IBM and Linux."
I think the only things holding back Linux from replacing AIX are:
I installed Linux on an IBM eServe recently and it took to it really well, although I did have to use the "vanilla" install option of the Debian netinst to get it to use the ServeRAID card.
unixkb.com -- articles on practical Unix issues.
" Although IBM may not have contributed directly to kernel code, they are doing a lot to improve LINUX's image in the mindset of MANAGERS of IT Project,"
Just so noone gets the wrong idea, IBM has been contributing to kernel and OS code. Granted it's not out of charity...
Also dont they have a mjority stakholding in SuSE practically the only distrobution you cant download iso for?
Um, you can't download this?
In walking, just walk. In sitting, just sit. Above all, don't wobble.
-- Yun-Men
Actually IBM did put AIX on the desktop in the form of RT-PC. In fact the AIX first appeared on the desktop before on a server,
So far, he's refused an absolutely huge patch from an IBM team, there were two competing implementations and the IBM team lost out (LVM?). Anyway, the team acted with dignity and honour, and got to work immediately with helping the other team. So - they have no history of this whatosever wrt to Linux.
Anyway, the moment there was a patent problem with the kernel, there'd be a non-infringing implementation in within seconds.
"And they get to milk developers who work for free!"
"Milk" implies that they don't contribute their share and from watching linux-kernel I can tell you thier engineers are responsable for many of the scaleabillity improvments added so far during the 2.5.x development cycle.
Bell Labs also have a history of Unix on their web site, written by one of the creators of UNIX. Do not miss the "Next" links below the articles and read how the story of Unix unfold! I almost did and thought they just had a short blurb about it. :-P
:-)
It's actually pretty in-depth and I found it interesting at least.
It also discuss how the B language (first letter in BCPL; the basis for B) evolved into C, and some of the obstacles they met when creating "The bext B" that became C, the idea of Unix pipes, a discussion of the syntax of Unix commands,
It proceeds into discussing the Unix "wars" between Sun and AT&T, the creation of the Open Software Foundation, etc.
Some quotes:
"Like another legendary creature whose name also ends in 'x,' UNIX rose from the ashes of a multi-organizational effort in the early 1960s to develop a dependable timesharing operating system."
"He [Ken Thompson] put pipes into UNIX, he put this notation into shell, all in one night," McElroy said in wonder.
"Thirty years after its creation, UNIX still remains a phenomenon," Ritchie marveled.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
And finally, correct me if I am wrong, but it is assumed that Linux gets it's name because it is the brainchild of Linus Torvalds
That's true. Linus didn't really call it anything at first, but when he wanted to upload it to a BBS to share it out, he needed a name. He came up with "Freax" ("Free UNIX", sorta). The BBS sysop didn't like that name, and changed the name to "Linux" ("Linus's UNIX", sorta). Linux was the one that stuck... nobody really liked Freax (not even Linus).
steveha
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
I read a thing on what POSIX stood for one time:
P - portable
O - operating
S - system
I - interface
X - all proper OS's end in X
Heh.
Support for large major/minor configurations. For example this translates to being able to handle more than 256 devices on a SAN. Hot Plug PCI & Io drawers that work. Capacity on demand across virtual partitions allows processor/RAM to appear disappear from a virtual partition. A journaled file system that supports dynamic expansion across LV's. Mixed 32-bit and 64-bit applications running on the same hardware under either a 32-bit or 64-bit kernel. A built in kernel debugger that doesn't suck.
This just off the top of my head. Most of these features like the the JFS/LVM stuff has been there for years.
I don't think so. I've used AIX for the last five years, coming from Slowlaris and HP-UX and it was light years ahead of those operating systems. I love Linux and I like the fact IBM AIX was starting to have Linux affinity and may eventually be replaced by it.
... who cares what it runs? In five years it might be IBM supporting my machines with Linux on it, but I'll still have a contract in place... why? Do I need it? No, its because as a member of a company whose systems need to be available and they assume some cost to have that happen. There is my paycheck and the support that enables me to offer them the uptime they need.
... a SMIT like utility, a configuration manager, support for LPAR's, etc.
In the last five years, I have not had an outage due to a problem with the operating system. I never had a problem upgrading the OS and adding maintainence. I have found drivers for all the hardware, plus with config manager I can remove and recreate devices without rebooting. There is nothing obscure about AIX. It runs on IBM's hardware and I've run my production systems for 5 years on my 14 node SP with NO issues.
My company pays for support, and I've used it, and it works. IBM may cost a pretty penny, but it works well. IBM partnered a while ago with RH in order to provide Linux support. Really, if IBM does continue to deliver great hardware (I just got a LTO tape library with 8 drives -- OMG is it fast)
Don't diss the old stuff because you can't diss the company. They have evolved and I appreciate it. There are many of Linux components missing from a linux distro
The thing that's obvious to me is IBM listens to their customers and is delivering what they try and promise -- the best thing out there to run.
So there.
You are incorrect, sir. You can, in fact, download the entire SuSE distribution fileset from their FTP site. All 5-odd gigabytes worth of it for every version. What you can not do, however, is download recent ISO images of their distribution. You are perfectly free to download the entire distribution and network-install it to your heart's content.
Go here if you're still not sure. If you'd prefer, you could use one of their FTP mirror sites located all over the world.
If you poke around, you'll find the RPMs for all binary packages as well as the sources of every (license permitting) package in their entire distribution. I count 2,072 source RPM packages.
For the record, up until the 7.0 release, SuSE always had downloadable, installable (not "live") ISOs of every release. Sometimes it came out later than their retail version, but it was always there, and I've got about six burned versions (up-to and including 7.0) to prove it.
BD Phone Home!
Shameless plug. Like you weren't expecting it.
Five years ago (1998) hardly anyone had heard of Linux. In the company I worked in back then I remember a consultant we hired mentioning it, but nobody I knew (even the techies) had even heard of it.
Five years ago large slabs of the university department I worked in were using Linux on their everyday desktops for software development and general e-mail/web browsing. Six months later, I left the university with a bunch of other people to join a biotechnology (proteomics) startup. We originally used Linux for e-mail/file/print/firewalling applications from the very start, as did our software group on their desktops. Our use of Linux has only expanded since then.
I don't know where you were working, or what sort of techies you were associating with, but in 1998 Linux was receiving a lot of attention in scientific, technical computing and software development circles.
I've been working at the IBM/Hitachi hard drive campus in San Jose for a while now, so I see the IBM "inside view" on a lot of things of this nature. (The corporate Intranet is loaded with "Linux is great" propaganda, btw). While IBM is historically a hardware company, they are moving to software and services to drive revenues for the future. Hardware is quickly becoming the second hat. The sale of the HDD division to Hitachi is evidence of this.
:)
My speculation is that in the future IBM will be less in the business of using pretty software to sell expensive hardware, and more into the business of selling expensive services running on moderatly expensive hardware, with pretty software to sweeten the deal. Then again, they might not. I'm not Johnny Carson here.
-pB
Just had to comment this due to all the strange assumptions/misconceptions made about IBM (and used as arguments which thus fail...).
And also a great excuse to post my first slashdot reply....
Fact 1!
IBM had a revenue of $81.2B in 2002, making $1.5B on Linux not that much money (but still money in a slugish market...)
Fact 2!
the revenue - margin - profit was divided as follows:
Services - $36.4B - 26.3% - $9,6B
Hardware - $27.5B - 27.1% - $7.5B
Software - $13.1B - 84.4% - $11.1B
Other - $4.3B - 52.7% - $2.3B
So saying that IBM is a hardware/software/services company is all wrong.
They are all of that, an IT *SOLUTIONS* Provider. Granted the strategy lately has been focus on services (and ~160k of the ~300k employees are in the services division).
Fact 3!
They spent a great deal of time/money on OpenSource/OpenStandards contributions, last number I heard was 2-300 fulltime developers and about 1500 with the "part timers", mostly working with Apache, Linux, Eclipse, Java and W3C. And also important, IBM spends $5B a year in *basic* research alone, the same amount as the 10 next big spenders (also won the most approved patents 10 last years) which drives the whole IT business forwards, like them or not.
Fact 4!
The so called big battle for the desktop is a battle for $28.4B with $11.9B which is M$ numbers for 2002 (I know this number is "wrong" as it doesn't acount for M$ server software (pulling down) and Other desktop OSes (pulling up) but still...)
or 35% of IBMs revenue (now add the revenue of Sun/HP/Dell/Oracle/Sybase/CA etc. and work out the Desktop to IT market percentage...).
Linux is more important in fighting M$ in the low range server market than the desktop market $-wise.
Fact 5.
They have anounced their on-Demand strategy ($10B/5year effort) where Linux is one of the four pilars to make it happen
GridComputing - AutonomicComputing - "OpenStandards/OpenSource" (Linux/ip/http/webservices/xml/java...) - Integration
So Linux is important in a number of ways to IBM.
Fact 6.
Yes, IBM is listed on the NYSE so their out to make money......
Not a fact but...:
Yes. IBM is embracing Linux (for good and bad?) because it's important in a number of ways to them, desktop wars not beeing top of the list, most listed in the other posts though. And Yes IBM has a record of not dropping OSes quickly so AIX will not disapear quickly, but given the onDemand strategy it might in time, they all might in time?
Fun fact:
You can run a Linux compiled application directly on AIX through linux compatibility support (don't know how good it is though.
Cheers Jasse "It's all a bunch of treehuging hippie crap" - E.Cartman