Slashdot Mirror
IBM Supporting Linux On Power Processors
aheath writes "IBM issued a press release today titled 'Businesses Embrace Linux and IBM POWER Technology', indicating that: 'IBM eServer pSeries and iSeries systems are available for SUSE and Red Hat Linux operating systems (OS) on IBM's POWER microprocessor-based architecture.' CNET News are running a story about this, too, explaining: 'IBM has put more weight behind its effort to attract customers to Linux that runs on its own Power processors, an initiative that distinguishes Big Blue from its competitors in the server market.' IBM has also signed up 300 vendors to provide software to run under Linux on Power processors."
Good. Linux on Power is a way better fit that the linux-on-mainframe stuff that was all the rage a year ago. IBM has always positioned Power as a high-end unix platform, so this is more of a seal of approval on linux being a high end unix than it is an attempt to drive Power down into lower end markets.
The *BSDs have it today for Linux. Linux has compatibility modules for some other OSes too, though no distribution AFAIK ship the required userland libraries.
Michel
Fedora Project Contribut
I think that linux on IBM "cross-boundaries" hardware is important. It's not a Linux on Mainframe, or Linux on PowerPC, or even Linux on IBM toasters, that's important. But a common OS that doesn't care what hardware's underneath. Train people on one OS, and reduce costs. Migrate them from you're cheapest offerings to the most expensive, and visa versa while they keep their software application base, and IBM keeps them as customers. As far as "seal of approval"? That happened with IBM's billion dollar investment. Much as the original IBM PC was the "seal of approval" for the personal computer.
I don't think Intel is panicing yet. That would be like saying Intel is in trouble because they haven't halped Apple get OS X running on Intel chips. Even if every linux user runs out and buys AMD chips tomorrow it would only tip a few points in the overall market, a loss to be sure, but not a whole lot of the overall pie.
Linux is open. If anyone has anything new and interesting to do in the future, there's a good chance they'll start with Linux as a base -- they won't go off and write something new from scratch.
This space unintentionally left unblank.
When will people get over this silly distinction? Poeple don't go around saying GNU/Solaris or GNU/BSD. And I don't call my windows Adobe/Windows because I may have a lot of adobe software!
:-P
:-P
This whole argument is obsurd, yes without GNU we wouldn't have linux as we know it, their contribution should not be forgotten, but the OS is LINUX!
If it executes a linux/ELF binary, then it is LINUX, not GNU/Linux. I think GNU tries to downplay the importance of a kernel with their stat on their web page stating that linux is only 3% of the system by volume in X common disto. Who gives a flying rats ass? Linux can be used in lots of different ways, not just a desktop. There may be aplications where there isn't much or any GNU software used at all... yet guess what.. STILL LINUX.
GNU is great and all, but the only truely GNU OS I know about is hurd, so if you are truly obsessed on using GNU/whatever, then start using hurd.
Now time for all the GNU mods to say this is flamebait
I have the feeling they're trying to make their hardware stand out. They'll just say, "hey don't spend it on the OS, but spend it on the hardware". Linux makes the OS more or less irrelevant as was noted in another comment.
Oracle tries to do this from the software point of view. Oracle's strategy is basically cheap lintel boxen in a cluster. That way, the customer's budget allows for more Oracle licenses...
8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
I think the SCO defence has earned them a few brownie points.
I think Sourceforge has earned them a few brownie points.
I think the eclipse contribution has earned them a few brownie points.
And I personally think their Java stuff and Develper Shed has helped as well.
If it has raised their profile and gotten them some good press -- they deserve it.
LS
You can be too bitter or distrusting.
I don't really care that IBM is making money on Linux, that is a companys purpose. What is really interesting is that they want to give their knowledgde to the community, and the community pays back with better karma. I am maybe too young to acknowledge the monopoly IBM, since I always liked their high leverage of development (real development, not MS development).
(yes this can be compared with sex)
Anyone with OS/2 certifications hanging around like myself can tell you that IBM's backing and listing of 'hundreds of partners' doesn't mean shit in the real world. Does this mean Linux will succeed or fail? No - it means I don't think IBM's involvement guarantees success for any technology. The graveyard of dead ends (including several years of my own career) is a testament to that.
Of course, if you run a Linux system without the GNU C library and other GNU software then there is no reason to call it 'GNU/Linux'. Similarly, you can run a GNU system with most of the same software but no Linux kernel.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
That's rather naive, although there are a few grains of truth in there.
IBM has historically been a hardware company, (now moving into services, but that's another matter). Consequently, the purpose of AIX was to drive hardware sales, at which it's done a pretty good job.
In the future, Linux may be able to serve the same purpose and so it may be in IBM's interests to drop AIX. However, until that time it is foolish to describe AIX as a "dead bird around (IBM's) neck".
Further, you may not be aware of this but the iSeries, (AS/400s) use substantially the same hardware as pSeries - even the latest Power4 Regatta technology. Clearly IBM have no objection to supporting two completely different operating systems for the same hardware if it helps to shift more boxes.
Finally, although there is a significant cost to IBM in supporting AIX, what makes you think it'll be any cheaper for them to support Linux on Power? Who but IBM is going to be able to support it on their latest and most expensive hardware? At the very least they'd have to invest a lot of money in making test servers available to Linux developers.
IBM is embracing open technologies fully because then, its competitors become its allies. In fact, it is a great strategy because it removes them from going in to potential customers and saying "our IBM stuff will meet all your needs". Instead (and this was also one of the reasons they bought the consulting firm a couple of years ago), they can say "we can bring in and support whatever hardware/software combination best meets your needs, whether or not it is made by IBM". How does Linux fit into this strategy? Well, what we have in the software industry today is a situation analogous to one where different car manufacturers have different gear shifts. Toyotas have one type, Fords have another type. In addition, Toyota only makes SUVs, Ford only makes two-seat convertibles and other companis only make one type of car. If you want to keep things simple, your wife and kids' cars should be Toyotas if yours is so that all of you you will have the knowledge of how to drive each others' cars so you can interchange them. If you need to haul a large load and you don't know how to drive the specific company that makes trucks' gear shift, you bring in a consultant skilled in that gearshift who has his own truck. Now, imagine in this situation that a company called IBMW comes along and says they can teach anybody to drive any car (or truck), no matter what the gearshift, no matter what gear shift system they know. They will make tons of money. Add to that the fact that their brand of car (the Linuxwagen) can be driven by anyone and comes in different models for different needs and they will make even more money. The bottom line is that certain aspects of every industry must be standard or interoperability and interchangeability (and therefore, usefulness and functionality) suffers. IBM strategy is visionary in that it call for dropping proprietary file formats (gear shift mechanisms) and standardizing under open standards. It's much like no one holds a patent on railroad guages but every rail car manufacturer in the US knows which guage to use so that they can be sold to anyone for use anywhere. Linux is open; it can be used anywhere. Finally, Henry Ford said that he would trade his car manufacturing company for a auto repair and body shop company. IBM has essentially done this. They are in the process of retreating from making cars (proprietary operating systems like AIX) to maintaining and customizing them (its purchase of Price Waterhouse consulting operations). It is a very smart move: there is more profit in the business of helping existing businesses.
"We are accountable for not only what we do, but also that which we don't do." -- Moliere
Of course IBM isn't embracing Linux out of any kind of morality or evangelism. That's just nature, all nature.
For example the reason I'm not a sociopath, and why you're not a sociopath, is because you fear consequences - i.e. you are worried about what will happen to you if you do something bad.
You don't steal from your friends because you want (actually need) friends, you are nice to them for selfish reasons. You don't kill your enemies, not because you're nice, but you don't want to go to jail or be killed by one of their friends. I do dog rescue and a lot of people tell me why a nice good thing that is, the truth is that I like dogs to the point of benefiting from simply being around them. I do it for entirely selfish reasons. I wouldn't do cat rescue, I wouldn't do bum rescue either come to think of it.
Likewise, IBM does things for entirely selfish reasons that look altruistic. Red Hat started that million dollar defense fund to attract more customers and get some nice free advertising, because they know SCO won't sue anybody and even if they do, RedHat thinks they will prevail. HP indemnified for the same reason. Microsoft paid off SCO because SCO was helping them, although inadvertently - not because MS is nice, and probably not because they had a pre-arranged deal with SCO.
People who do altruistic things that don't benefit them in any way are either 1) crazy 2) unaware of the fact that what they are doing benefits them in some way or thinks it will benefit them in some way.
Want to know why religious people try to be "good"? They want to go to heaven. That's also why they go to church, even when they hate church. It's why they evangelise too. If you look, selfishness can explain just about every single "good" thing you do whether it's good or not. I'm an atheist, but I still try to be good, because if I'm not, I think it will come back to haunt me, in short, it's dangerous to be "bad". I'm no fool.
The key to happiness BTW, is doing things that help you and others. IBM knows this and so long as we have the same means to different ends, everybody is happy. Today the means is Linux. Tomorrow it won't be.
I don't agree with the 'wants to dump AIX' comment. AIX is ridiculously stable, has a great suite for system management and program installation. IBM won't dump AIX until they can convince themselves and their customers that the same or better functionality is available on Linux. I use AIX everyday and it PAINS me to go to linux.