Cheap PPC Linux Machines From IBM

ksheff writes "According to this story, IBM is planning on introducing low-end SMP servers and deskside machines based on the PPC970. The machines would be able to run Linux and AIX. A 4-way machine is expected to cost less than $3500! IBM expects a 20x increase in the number of PPC Linux servers by 2006."

Comments

Like the G5, without OS X

[sirmikester]

Unless I'm missing something, this could definately serve as a linux workstation. The power of the new G5 with linux, what could be better?

Now if I only had a spare $3,500 to spend on it...

Not suprised

[agent dero]

We just heard on Slashdot that the new 3 billion plant wasn't living up to expectations, so IBM has to capitalize on this oppurtunity.

This is also a good thing for the mac community because now the G5 will get a lot more "work" done on it, because IBM will have to compete with other 64-bit manufacturers on a broader stage than just the Mac arena.

Re:Dual 2Ghz

[Dunkalis]

This isn't meant for you running Mac OS X on it. Its meant for you to run Linux on. Besides, I'd guess Mac On Linux will probably run fine. With a bit of hacking, you could probably run OS X, if you really felt like it.

I really doubt that people wanting to run Mac OS X are the targeted group here. It is, as IBM says it is, for servers and Linux desktops.

depends on the price point...

[splerdu]

Unless it's prices significantly lower than Apple's offerings, I wouldn't bet on it as a workstation. MacOSX already offers a great kernel with an even better GUI, and right now I wouldn't put money on Linux against that for a work desktop.

The server market, on the other hand will definitely get a great boost. Cheap PPC970 and 64-bit = heaven for databases, web, and app servers.

Re:Nice!

[usotsuki]

Okay, last time IBM redefined the PC, they fscked up royally. But maybe this time they can successfully redefine what it means to be IBM-compatible, with a machine that rivals the Macintosh, aimed at the Linux PC market.

If these machines can be coaxed into running Darwin, maybe there will be some limited amount of binary compatibility with OS X - and people could run programs on both boxes. Compatibility is a good thing, but who says IBM has to be PC-compatible? Besides, these days the Apples are more IBM than your average PC.

I say this can only be a Good Thing.

-uso..

Avoid Intel lockout

[Anonymous Coward]

If Intel and MS proceed to only allowing signed software this could provide a nice escape path for Linux users

Re:We already know.....

[dcstimm]

the PPC970 is a 64 bit cpu...

How can you compair a Athlon to a G5?

Yes If you want a cheap dual smp rig then Athlons are fine. But if you want a powerfull workstation, backed by a huge company, THis is a pretty cool idea.

im sure since IBM is the creator of a G5 they are going to be able to support them better than anything else they sell. Companies are going to see this and they will realize that these machines will be quick and easy for IBM to repair.

Oh Sure these companies can call Bob's computer warehouse, but we all know how much better IBMs support will be....

If I worked for a Multimillion dollar company I wouldnt want the computer repair guy going to walmart to pick up spare parts for their new server/workstation.....

Re:G5 alternative?

[OS24Ever]

However, if the IBM Machine is geared towards business server use it's going to have an ATI 8MB hard mounted video card with no AGP slot.

Why put an ATI Radeon 9800 Pro in a machine that is going to show a login: prompt at best?

This could work

[cartman]

IBM already shoulders the enormous design costs of POWER4 for their high-end pSeries unix boxes. The tweaks necessary to make the PPC 970 for Apple have already been done at Apple's behest. It costs IBM very little additional R&D money to make low-end servers based on a chip they already design and manufacture for other reasons.

This makes PPC the only competitor to x86 in the commodity server space, except Sun, but Sun's product lineup grows more stale and outclassed by the day. Using IBM's compiler the 2GHz PPC970 performs approximately equivalently to a 2.8GHz p4 using icc, which is far beyond the performance offered by the in-order execution (!!) 1.05 GHz UltraSparc iii.

Having an alternative to x86 in the server space is desirable, because PPC will always have better heat dissipation and power consumption at a given level of performance. These are important considerations especially in the blade server market. In addition these are 64-bit boxes which will allow going beyond the 4GB memory barrier without using the "segmented memory" hack of the 36-bit memory addressed Xeons.

In short, this could work.

Nonsense.

[aussersterne]

A computer is a tool, not a home, it's not a fashion statement. OS X gets this right. Trivial time-wasters like themes--while they may keep you from getting bored--really don't have much practical value.

That's bull. Mac OS X only helps "just getting work done" if you're functionally computer illiterate.

I'm a creative pro (supposedly Mac's main market) and yet I do all my photo processing (which is extensive) in Linux.

Why? Becuse it's about 100x faster in Linux due to the degree that I have been able to optimize my workflow:

1) Focus-follows-mouse, always shunned by non-Unix systems and now even by Unix systems (OS X, GNOME) saves endless point-and-click strokes (find titlebar, click to focus) when you have dozens of image windows open. Each one of these is a savings of several seconds. If you're performing hundreds or thousands of manipulations on a single task in multiple windows, that adds up to hours saved, not just minutes, on focus policy alone.

2) Fast cut/paste. Here again, the reviled behavior of X (highlight with left button, move to another window that focuses automatically, middle click where you want it to paste) saves incredible amounts of time versus the OS X or Windows behaviors (highlight with left button, hit CTRL-C, click on titlebar of destination window, click where you want to place cursor for paste, hit CTRL-V). The combination of focus-follows-mouse and keystroke-free copy/paste here again saves hours, not just minutes, when performing reptitious tasks.

3) Floating windows are my call. Once again I can keep GIMP tool windows, layer/channel dialogs, a kcalc, my conferencing window and others on top at my discretion, rather than always having to hunt down and raise some windows (by clicking on a taskbar or a dock) that I know I will need over and over again or being stuck with others on top that I don't want there and that just take up screen real estate. And when I am done with them, I can release them from forceed raise behavior.

4) Ability to turn of automatic raise when windows receive a click (done by combining focus follows mouse + titlebar-raise-only). I can have one window partially obscuring another and be working (inputting) in the "lower" (partially obscured) window while referring to one or more upper windows that partially obscure it. No need to "raise this one, look, raise that one, work, raise this one, look some more, raise that one, work some more, oh hell, just make a hardcopy, hmm, where shall we set the hardcopy..."

6) Scriptability/rapid application development. Yes, the dreaded command line shell. Many of my most intense post-production tasks (i.e. laying out posters with their captions, borders, copyright notices, anti-aliasing, interpolating to proper sizes, etc.) are database driven and processed through command line tools like ImageMagick. This allows me to do things like "makeposter 20x16 img_2525.crw" and in a single pass have the image automatically fetched from archive, converted from Canon raw, edited, captioned, matted, etc. according to a list of edits and captions I've saved ahead of time for images in my database, then sent to post-production (i.e. output). Don't tell me that there is a "makeposter" command in Mac OS X that will automatically query my database of images and perform these tasks for me, or that Apple will be willing to write me one.

[Perhaps AppleScript is capable of this stuff, perhaps not... I don't know AppleScript. But I will happily refuse to buy arguements that as well as my system works for me, I should switch to Mac OS X simply because AppleScript just "gets it right" or is "just more elegant" as scripting languages go. You'll have to give me real benefits, not techno-spiritual ones.]

7) The X-factor. I take pictures and I write prose. Those are the things I do for a living. I have other things that I do as hobbies (i.e. the /. stuff, volunteering to run some free community network centers/labs

Re:Nonsense.

[cuyler]

I'd like to recommend a Mac OS X program for you: CodeTek VirtualDesktop.

It adds the following to OS X:
=> Virtual Desktops (up to 100)
=> Edge flipping between desktops
=> Hotkeys to switch between desktops (I have it be the same as my Enlightenment settings)
=> The ability to handle individual applications differently that normal settings
=> Focus follows mouse

That does not address all of your concerns of course, but it does make using OS X a little more like a real Unix system.

Personally I like the CMD-C, CMD-V to copy and paste. I always have to stop myself under other Unix systems from copying a URL I want to view, going to my browser, selecting the URL and pasting the first URL overtop. You can't do that on more Unix system because it'll copy the URL you are trying to paste over automatically. That was one of my pet-peeves with I work in 100% Linux. For you, it's the reverse.

As for your points, 1, 3 and 4 are handled by CodeTek Virtual Desktop (I particularly enjoy 3, I have a desktop for each task that I have, browsing, instant messaging, e-mail, etc...).

For number 6, I use the shell, I use Perl, I use Applescript and I use bash (sometimes I'll use C or C++ too, depending on what I'm doing). I can't think of what I did under Linux scripting-wise that I can't do under Mac OS X.

For number 7, I actually will load up KDE or TWM on one of my desktops if I want the nice classic feel (this also gives the same feel for your number 2).

Oh, yeah, I couldn't think of anything to help you with number 5 - I couldn't find it :-)

I'm not trying to say 'You should use Mac OS X', but I would like to think that people shouldn't discount it because people think that Mac OS X is just simplifying Unix by removing features. I find that all it takes is a little looking around in order to find how to do what you want on OS X. I now work 100% with OS X. My OS X, although is still had the aqua theme (which I can get rid of) it doesn't look at all like a normal OS X workstation.

For me, I have found that with enough poking around I can get a system to work for me whether its Linux, OS X, Windows or BeOS. I found that Linux was the easiest to configure (outside the norm) - even more than OS X (that was much easier to configure within the norm).

That's just my $0.02 CDN.

Re:Nonsense.

[El]

There could be a gas BUTTON on the steering wheel. Breaks could likewise be accessable via a lever.

You've just described an adaptive vehicle, as used by handicapped persons. There are thousands of them. Why? Because they work much better than a standard car for their intended customer. Now, tell me again what's wrong with customing your OS?