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
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.
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.
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?
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
Humour aside, what you may not realize as an industry expert is that they have enough patents to last them a lifetime even if they pursued a purely IP Licensing based business model :)
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.
I once had a discussion with a CEO of quite a big product development organization who was thinking of diversifying into Bio-informatics because they had done some pioneering research and had some patents and cool algorithms. Mind you, this is a really technically savvy guy with years of experience (who would probably even tell you Perl syntax) and respected by VCs for his experience and expertiese -- not a yuppie management guy.
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.
IBM still has that respect and trust among corporates that most other companies don't. And IBM has that trust factor for new research -- sure, they're not as big a market presence (relatively) as they once were, but they're definitely one of the better ones out there.
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.
... Intel and AMD lead, hell, even Apple's CPUs are more popular than IBM's.
More popular by whose standard? Their market share may be negligle but it is definitely high-end. Companies (banking, FAA, etc.) will pay top dollar for machines that simply don't fail.
I work for an orgainzation that requires a minimum of 99.9999% uptime. We have been using IBM RISC-based gear since the RT came out because of this. We used some Sun gear for a while but those just didn't cut the mustard.
Arf!
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
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...
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