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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
linux is user friendly... it's just picky about its friends.
2 1337 4 u!
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
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
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.
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
you insensitive clod!
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
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
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
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.
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.
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.