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."
As Linux gets more and more momentum behind it, it starts to seem like it will be the last OS that will ever make serious inroads into the general public.
This is not to say that Tannenbaum cultists won't write their own little systems or that Bell Labs won't come up with some ingenious new idea. The thing is that the Open Source nature of Linux makes it possible that any new idea that exists in the real world can be incorporated into the Linux operating system and so Linux grows at the expense of other operating systems.
It's a lot like UNIX, which may be owned by SCO, but whose spirit is embodied in a handful of operating systems including Linux. Lisp is also this way, introducing very useful features that can be copied by other languages making them more Lispy than Lisp becoming more "other-languagy".
I have been pwned because my
Today the corporate arena, tomorrow the whole world!
In a few month, they'll have to give everything away to SCO anyways...
Write boring code, not shiny code!
IBM's Linux strategy has been comprehensive (from top to bottom) for some time. Perhaps this just signals that they feel those versions of Linux are stable enough to promote more heavily, or perhaps it is just a reiteration of what they have been doing all along.
I don't really see how supporting Linux on their own machines distinguishes them from their competitors, any more than having their own house RISC already does. Sun is getting eaten by Linux, but HP and SGI both support Linux on their new machines with Itanium 2 processors that are competitive with the POWER family.
As a lone voice in the wildernis, I'd like to ask IBM to put their support behind Debian also. While RH and SuSE are fine organisations, Debian is particularly special IMHO, enough to receive the support from all major vendors.
(Secretly dreaming of Debian *everywhere* - hey, I can dream, it's on my Sparc, my i386 and my Mac, one day I'll make my Clie boot it too!)
|>>?
When?
RS
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
It's an inadvertant DoS caused by the ping flood that occurs whenever slashdot is slightly slower than usual.
Badass Resumes
Your blatant karma whoring has completely overwhelmed the single 486 running the site.
Finally they will start selling 970 workstations with RH or SUSE installed. Hell even MS said there would be like 5 64bit longhorn version, coupled with C#, we would get some real competition in the hardware business.
Sleep is for the weak.
As an industry expert, I recommend that they diversify into the console gaming market.
Must use preview, must you preview, must use preview....
You could be right. But my guess is that Linux will continue to evolve to such a point in 10 years that we won't recognize it as as the Unix work-alike it started out as.
Maybe we'll just drop the term "the OS" and say "The Linux." But since some geeks (like me) may hold on to the idea that Linux is just the kernel, I hope that "The Debian" gets that place instead. It has a good shot since it allows for different kernels which will allows more freedom for innovation of the OS.
Darl sues IBM for making a press release when it was his turn.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
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.
Well I never lost connection but I wasn't getting any pictures and it was very slow for a while. It wasn't gone completely but we came very close.
Yellow Dog for the G5 has been available for a while; it's working OK in my office.
I really like how so many PPC based OS's are coming out, morphos, amigaos, etc. And with QEMU allowing cpu emulation on the PPC, soon it wont matter which CPU you have, you can run any OS you want.
Are we almost near processor independance day?
If so, it's very unfortunate. Although it's possible to incorporate anything into Linux, the poor quality and structure of the code means that many things are much more difficult to implement there than they would be in research systems, or even in some other UNIX systems. Solaris in particular has a very clean code base.
I do think there are things that would be too difficult to implement in Linux to be worthwhile, and if they ever turn out to be important it will be at the expense of Linux. Also, I think it is unfair to characterize Andy and his type as cultists. He has a lot more understanding of OS issues than Linus does. I'm not saying he would necessarily make better decisions in implementing an OS, but to write him and his community off like that is naive.
In fact, Linux has already lost a lot by rejecting academic input. As it expands to new places (new architectures, and to larger and smaller machines) it is getting more of that input in bits and pieces. It still feels a lot like the early Macintosh, where team members would omit their PhD from their resume when applying because management saw it as a negative. A significant portion of the contributions to Linux are from academia, but they have to slip in unnoticed because the community, and its leaders in particular, believe that academia has no value.
Now if there was a nice "low cost" i.e. competitive with Intel/AMD platform for an individual developer then that could really seed the development environment and get things going.
Even if IBM have to ship at cost, it would be a very good thing.
Intel has been really reluctant to help with Linux on the Centrino. This is worrying because it might be a glass ceiling for Linux on new hardware.
If Intel doesn't support linux on its new hardware we can go AMD & IBM and never look back.
ls
http://tuxmobil.org/centrino.html
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.
It has been said that the day Linux refuses to open a file because the right ap isn't installed is the day that Linux ceases to be Unix.
It will also be the day I have to abandon Linux in favor of a more "user friendly" OS, in the way that I define user friendly.
I can't say that I'm happy with the idea that "Linux" could turn into a "brand," just a label which can be attached to any old thing without reference to what that thing is.
You can glue a red oval to a VW instead of a black circle, but that doesn't make it a Bugatti no matter what the script in the oval claims.
If and when Linux ceases to be Linus' Unix it'll be time to acknowledge the fact overtly.
At which point I may well find that the OS I have to use instead is. . . Linux.
KFG
I think this is fantastic news! -- that is if I understand it correctly.
Am I reading that, IBM will be selling complete G5 Processor & Motherboards. Will I be able to pick up (probably gnutella copy...) a copy of OSX 10.3 and run it on this system?
I've always wanted a Mac, I've just never wanted to pay for a Mac!
Gamblers Forum
Well, first thing, of course, is that Apple CPUs are IBM CPUs. For the G5, the whole design is from IBM; but even the G4s are fabbed by IBM (though designed by Motorola). So big blue likes the PowerPCs all around.
Still, the IBM announcement makes some sense of my IBM developerWorks editor's push for a rush job on an article about Linux on PowerPCs. Despite the rush, I think it turned out well. Take a look at:
Buy Text Processing in Python
A friend of mine is a Linux kernel hacker for IBM and a while ago he was telling me IBM got quite a lot of people asking for Linux over AIX on some of their hardware but that IBM had to say "no" because they couldn't deliver it. (Sadly my memory is fuzzy on the details)
Hopefully this announcement and the fact they have more external vendors on board means they are ready to push some product out the door.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
Why? Because IBM wants to dump AIX. Why? Because AIX costs IBM money to support. Why? Because IBM is the only one doing AIX. Linux, on the otherhand, is being supported by tons of people doing it for little to no pay. Which means IBM can get rid of the dead bird around its neck, and jump onto the bandwagon which other people are pulling.
IBM isnt embracing Linux out of any kind of morality or evangelism. Its all about the money. Im not saying its a bad thing; quite the opposite. But lets view the situation for what it really is.
Manipulate the moderator system! Mod someone as "overrated" today.
I don't think it even needs to be Debian persee. If you write the low level stuff for POSIX and the high level stuff for a portable framework then the only OS stuff that matters is the toolset and most OS's ship with the GNU tools. There is bad software out there that isn't easily portable but most stuff today that is available for Linux can fairly easily be ported to the *BSD's and Solaris.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
All IBM has to do is just sit there whilst SCO burns through its cash reservers. In a court case I know who is going to last longer
Rus
CPanel + Root from $35/mo - 10% off with discount code SLASHDOT
linux is user friendly... it's just picky about its friends.
2 1337 4 u!
The change will be so gradual you won't even notice it.
But I'm sure you'll still be able to
apt-get install curmudgeonly-cli-environment
And be perfectly happy even then...
Remember the battles between network protocols, and how TCP/IP inexorably took over the whole domain until "network = TCP/IP" became a self-evident truth.
The same is IMO inevitable with Linux because it has solved the main issue of how to provide the necessary services on any platform in a non-partisan manner. The people who "get it", like IBM, are swiftly moving to a "Linux everywhere" strategy on which they can build a solid business of services and products. The people who still don't get it, like Microsoft, insist that Linux is an illegitimate upstart with no credentials.
The operating system as a product has become almost completely commoditized. There is simply no compelling reason for someone with free choice to pay for OS software today.
However, don't say "last", this would be wrong. Linus is most likely the "last OS" in the same sense as TCP/IP is the "last internetworking protocol". But new models of computing that provoke new concepts of organization and software are inevitable. Linux is not infinitely plastic and there is an infinite space beyond its reach that will be filled with the upstart OS platforms of the future.
Ceci n'est pas une signature
What an incredibly peculiar notion.
KFG
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
RMS is the Great Man, but if we put in all the slash terms into GNU/Linux that really belong there, Linux would have a name more appropriate for an Ent.
Am I the only one, who thinks IBM gets too much free advertising on ./ lately? (or just the only one who isn't ignoring these advertorials?)
Ok, they are the target of a riduculous case of SCO, so airtime related to that is fine for me.
But their still just one company, embracing linux. It is nice, that a large company does that, but I think we know that already (for years!) So please posters, be a little bit more critical against articles, like this.
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.
The GameCube's chip is designed and manufactured by IBM. Sure, it's a partnership between IBM, Nintendo, and Panasonic, and they'll use the "Nintendo" name for marketing purposes, but they have a hold in that market (the same way Sony had a hold with the SNES before going larger scale...).
Why don't they make their own distro? Or buy Suse or Redhat? It would make sence, since they are getting to be so Linux oriented.
Slipping Away...
PC clusters are a joke, Macs even more so.
Haha!
Besides, ever worked on labs that _really_ need to do serious number crunching (hint, hint)? They swear by IBM. PC clusters are a joke, Macs even more so.
What? Do you think that NCSA doesn't do "serious number crinching" with THIS ? Guess what? They're Dells, powered by Intel Silicon.
How about Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory it's running a linux cluster with 1,116 nodes.
One of his core business models for furthering the bio-informatics idea was to contact IBM and get them to design CPUs that would optimize the algorithms for certain vector and matrix operations. And he had enough information from IBM contacts who confirmed that if the idea proved viable, they would do so.
Next are you going to tell us that this guy works in the "Double '0'" section of the British Secret Service?
IBM has made some revolutionary discoveries in microprocessor design. IBM is still one of the most innovative companies out there. IBM still produces some serious Big Iron, but let's not over state it.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
This is not about someone's ego. Without GNU and the GPL, the software wouldn't be Free. And the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
Even a Linux monoculture is still a monoculture, and still dangerous. Maybe we'd better hope BSD really isn't dying, like the troll says it is.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
the iSeries (new name of AS/400) and pSeries have been on the PowerPC processor type for many years. They were one of the first 64bit computers available for commercial purposes. The zSeries will join the iSeries on PowerPC processors beginning with the G5.
The iSeries can already run Linux as a hosted OS. While where I work hasn't allowed us to do so it is not a complicated process. The iSeries OS and microcode is C/C++ based. Many Unix applications can already be ported to the box via PASE (Portable Application Solutions Environment). The hosted OS gets a lot of benefit from the base OS of the system involved including use of many of the attached devices like high speed tape drives and libraries.
IBM is just levarging existing hardware, hardware that has reliablity that you do not get in PC based servers.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
you insensitive clod!
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
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.
While I agree and *don't* call Linux GNU/Linux, there are operating systems that execute Linux binaries without modification and they are not Linux. The BSD Linux compatability layer comes to mind.
A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
A Debian install, on top of a NetBSD kernel. The shell is bash (GNU), and this interprets all of the init scripts. The loader comes from the GNU project. The next thing to be launched is XFree86 (not GNU, and not GPL'd). On top of X, runs gdm (GNU again), which provides a graphical login screen to the user. Once you log in, you are presented with the GNOME desktop environment (no prizes for guessing what the G in GNOME stands for...) You browse the web a bit with Epiphany (can you guess?) and mangle some figures with GNUmeric. Perhaps you decide you don't like Epiphany, and download the Linux version of Opera. Of course, this runs fine on NetBSD's Linux binary compatibility layer.
By your definition, this is a Linux system (i.e. it executes a Linux ELF binary). I would contend, however, that there is a lot more GNU (i.e. lots) than there is Linux (i.e. none) in this system.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
How important is access to the architecture these days? I regularly develop code on my PowerBook that is deployed on a dual Xeon visualisation workstation, or a SGI Onyx when it needs that extra bit of speed. As long as you stick to writing portable code, don't rely on a particular byte-order, and put anything platform specific inside #ifdefs then your code should run on any POSIX-like system (assuming that your supporting libraries do).
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
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
We have names to tell things apart. Since Linux is (almost) always a system with GNU-libraries, it's pointless to add it everytime.
The crusade to add the "GNU" prefix is doomed to fail because the natural thing to do with redundant prefixes is to drop them.
Besides, GNU isn't really running that much on my system anyway. KDE is much bigger in terms of lines of code and I don't use much GNU-programs anyway (no emacs).
The iSeries has been supporting Linux for a couple of years now -- although frankly it's just really catching on in any significant numbers.
In fact it isn't just the POWER chips that will run it. Essentially the entire current iSeries line will run Linux.
In January 2002, IBM released V5R2 of OS/400 and the POWER4 processor on the platform on the model 890. Last year, they pushed the POWER4 chip down into a few other models.
Good stuff to come this year....stay tuned!!!
K.
Last time I checked, I was excited by the prospect of a 32 processor system. Perhaps they'll send me a free demo unit. I wish they marketed like AOL. I wouldn't mind getting a few of these in brightly colored mailers from time to time.
b li cUSA/en_US/eServer/pSeries/pSeries.html
http://www-132.ibm.com/content/home/store_IBMPu
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
Firstly, Linux has been running on POWER4 since at least May 2002 thanks to SUSE (-personaly witnessed this). Second is that PowerPC is a stripped down varient of the POWER line. They are separate architectures. POWER came first, PowerPC came 2nd. Apple will not be putting a POWER4 cpu in there workstations anytime soon. How do I know this? One POWER4 MCM (8 cpu's on a die) at 1.5GHz is about $150,000. While single cpu POWER4's have made it into IBM's lower pSeries workstation line they still aren't cheap. I have not seen anyone license POWER cpu's anywhere yet in the last decade of their existance so again I dought they will end up in your next Mac.
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.
My first Unix was v7, 25 years ago.
You still move files, dd things, and have a shell script, make, cc, and so on.
Yeah, a few options have changed here and there, but the fundimentals of the OS are easily familar if you time travel fowards or backwards a couple of decades.
Now if we could get them to port Smartsuite and Client Access. They're missing the boat, I loved Smartsuite, it would be sweet on Linux.
This quote confuses me (OK, that's not hard to do, just looking for some instruction here): "IBM has also signed up 300 vendors to provide software to run under Linux on Power processors."
Should this sentance end "run under Linux." without the "on Power processors" part? My question is this, once Linux is ported to the Power processors (that part's already done, right?) then would software be written to run on a Linux OS, but only on a Power processor? Would software written for Linux on i386 run on Linux with a Power? Does porting the kernel not bring all the existing software to the new platform? Does software on the new platform not run on the old one?
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced. - Geek's corollary to Clarke's law
The point isn't that you are using any GNU programs actively (although I bet you are), but that Linux was built using the GNU tools such as the C compiler.
If it wasn't for the GNU C compiler you would not have a kernel (or anything else for that matter) to begin with.
As Linus said himself when he released Linux
I don't think Linus would deny the contribution of GNU to the success of Linux.
The IBM BladeServer JS20 is a dual processor G5 system on a blade. Admittedly, they're limited to 1.6GHz instead of the 2GHz of the Apple desktops or XServe G5, but when you can pack 14 of them into a 7U chassis, it may still be a better choice.
#include <beowulfjoke.h>Nopes. Porting the kernel will, uh, port the kernel. Note that it doesn't mention Open Source apps. It says just apps... you can run closed source apps on linux. Those apps need to be ported to the PPC arch to use with the PPC linux kernel. Without this, you can't just pop in your x86 binaries on the PPC kernel.
Linux is a always a system with the GNU libraries and the Linux kernel, so it's pointless to add it every time. From now on, the name of the system should just be " ".
This is America, damnit. Speak Spanish!
The zSeries are the mainframes. they run a CISC chip.
do you have a source that says zSeries will be moved to the POWER platform? that would be rather cool.
PHP is the solution of choice for relaying mysql errors to web users.
It brings a lot of it... But not all, by any means.
Many programs which manipulate binary data are hard-coded with the assumption that the data order is little-endian, as it is on Intel. These programs will break on a big-endian architecture like Power.
Also, some programs may rely on memory protection functionality which is not available on a particular architecture (for example, on Intel, it's impossible to mark a page as "execute-only." Programs which depend on being able to mark pages as "execute-only" thus cannot function on x86 processors.)
As another example, a multimedia application which relies on certain real-time assumptions may not function on a platform which cannot make those real-time guarantees (perhaps because it has a crappy interrupt architecture).
And of course, there's always software that's mainly written in C, but also has little portions written in assembler. Clearly, these programs won't just magically compile on a completely different processor.
no, because they already have AIX which is a superior server os and linux or AIX for workstations. why would they would they want to support an unproven os (unproven in the big corporate market where they make most of their money)?
PHP is the solution of choice for relaying mysql errors to web users.
If you can't afford a cheapie eMac, I doubt you'll want to pay for a IBM reference board.
Sure, Oracle can "just type make" to create a Linux/PowerPC version of Oracle, but offering a fully tested and supported version takes effort.
This is running on real POWER chips, full 64 bit, multiple core on one die chips. This is not the (scaled down, subset of POWER) PowerPC chips. I don't think POWER Linux would not run on a PowerPC (article doesn't say), though it has a small chance of being possible; the G5 is closer to POWER architecture than any previous incarnation of PowerPC, but I still doubt it.
That said, PowerPC Linux would run just fine. In fact PowerPC Linux already runs on the p6xx series, just as a 32 bit Linux, not full 64 bit. You can already run PowerPC linux on that blade/XServe. The situation gets better, IBMs SOI technology allowed a huge power cut going for their G5s moving to 90mm. Run faster, less electricity and cooler than previous chips. Life is good again.
> I don't think Linus would deny the contribution of GNU to the success of Linux.
I'm sure you're right. However, it's not necessary to name a program after the compiler that produced the binary. That's why the kernel is called "Linux" and not "GCC/Linux". There are indeed a lot of GNU programs in my Linux install. There are a lot of BSD programs, X11 programs, programs not written by GNU but still licensed under the GPL, a few commercial applications, etc...
The point is when you declare that an "operating system" is defined, and indeed named after its userland programs, then I'm a proud owner of a GNU/X11/BSD/Loki/Freevo..../Linux system.
Therefore it's not GNU/Linux because that's leaving out all the other userland programs. If you restrict the naming convention to just the kernel, things are a hell of a lot easier. "Linux" is a perfectly good name by itself.
Among other things, POWER is 64-bit and big-endian. Most current x86 is 32-bit, and all x86 is little-endian. If people don't write their file load / save code properly, the endian difference can be a major PAIN. :(
Although I am happy to see IBM give users the option to run Linux on their existing hardware, I can't figure out why anyone would want to take their iSeries and turn it into a Linux box. After all, they already have an OS on it that's much more secure, efficient, scalable, and easy to maintain. I run Linux on my boxes at home and I see the potential advantage to replace AIX with Linux on a pSeries (except when you get to large clusters), but I just don't see what advantage one gets out of running Linux on an iSeries.
That is all.
I agree with that. When people ask I say "my OS is Linux." Then I move in for the kill and say "the best version IMHO is Debian GNU/Linux." I figure its like "I run windows....Windows NT, etc."
But really it doesn't matter that much. I think Linux is grand.
Linux Magazine reviews the IBM p615
We're not talking about the compiler. We're talking about the C libraries which its built upon. You can compile it with whatever you want, and you'll still need the GNU C libraries.
In essence, without GNU, there would be no Linux.
As much as I hate the term GNU/Linux, theres valid reasoning behind the naming.
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=3D03/01/22/1730 217&mode=3Dthread&tid=3D1=005 009
was the original Slashdot link that apparently does not exist any more so see
http://www.linuxjournal.com/article.php?sid=
for the concept behind such a low cost device.
Would a company like Samsung, the world's largest TFT LCD maker and a PowerPC licensee be willing to step up to the plate and make this kind of PowerPC SoC based product?
Any purists who would like to read the unabridged version of the article, plus updates on how to accomplish a modular LCD with LinuxPC concept, please e-mail me.
Henry Keultjes
Database Scientifics
Mansfield Ohio USA
lastnameatearthlinkdotnet
I work on my car using Craftsman wrenches, but I don't call it my Sears/Volvo. Neither do I call it my Chevron/Volvo because of the brand of gas I use, or the Bridgestone/Volvo because of its tires.
The Spoon
Updated 6/28/2011
Heh, I've wanted the same thing... there's NetLSD, but they never produced anything. I'd give it a shot if I had some spare time :)
Tm
Support TBI Research: http://www.raisinhope.org
We'd need a tree structure, too. Something like, ((KDE, GNOME)/XFree86/), bash)/GNU/Linux, only much bigger and thornier. I wonder if the Ents are into Lisp....
Am I the only one, who thinks IBM gets too much free advertising on ./ lately?
No, troll, you are not the only one. Bill Gates wants you to be thinking of his crap instead. He does not care if you hate it or love it, so long as it occupies your thoughts. You and he must be crying everytime Slashdot writes presents anything else. I, on the other hand, am glad to read about anything but that crap that I don't use except when forced. As fewer and fewer people are forced to use that crap, there will be less and less to think about. Your task master will return to his former irrelavent state.
IBM, on the other hand, is entirely relavent. They are and making lots of money off free software without having to close it up or control freak it. IBM and others are in a position to offer the world much greater quality software at much lower cost than any closed source code vendor. Closed source crap has been dead for a while. IBM is not here to defend, assail or even mention it. IBM is here to burry the rotten corpse and anyone still clinging to it. Take notice or die.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
yes, every day. works great.
PHP is the solution of choice for relaying mysql errors to web users.