Slashdot Mirror
Linux-only POWER5 server From IBM
vaporland writes "This story from Infoworld.com talks about IBM's new low priced POWER5 based servers which will ship with Red Hat or Suse Linux, but not IBM's AIX.
My question is, will it boot up Apple's OSX Server?"
Highly doubtful, OSX requires special roms... Maybe in Mac-On-Linux though.
IBM wants your apps. They'll give you a free laptop bag if you develop an app for Linux on their Power platform. I think the most disturbing thing about this is the picture of Tux in a blue tux. He looks like he's ready to sing in a lounge somewhere.
But (somewhat) seriously, I could make room a four-way 64 bit Linux box on my desk. Chances are you've probably not seen my desk -- not an easy task.
Recipes for geeks -- no meatloaf, we promise.
No. Next question.
My sig is blank, I typed this by hand.
instead of a bunch of people with no idea what the answer might be and just attack IBMs marketing practises
Odds are that it wont. Diferent (if similar) CPU and architecture. Also, since when is 5k$ low cost?
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
My question is, will it boot up Apple's OSX Server?"
No, because OSX does checks to look for Apple-specific hardware on boot.
I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....
Is there anything on the silicon they would prevent me from installing AIX on it?
A lot of people say that PPC Linux has been historically slower than X86 Linux but I honestly cannot see the difference when running my K6-2 and Power Computing machines side by side. Has this been squashed, or can someone provide evidence to the contrary?
With the supposed capacity to emulate 20 servers virtually, can these low/medium-end POWER5s actually perform adequately (comparably to the single-servers they are targeting)? That seems like a bit of a stretch.
It is commendable, however, that IBM is maintaining its Linux focus (at least on the servers). Now if they'd start pushing the desk/laptop a little harder...
I would be much more interested in IBM dropping prices on a Power5 desktop. It seems unlikely, but I would buy that thing in a second.
This is good news. Currently, there are few 64bit platforms where the hardware and software (Linux) are supported by the vendor. I wonder how well these will perform, and more importantly will IBM release a good compiler for them so that we can use them.
Will it boot OS/2?
Because the current RedHat offering, RHEL, is a BUSINESS application, and in business the mantra "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" applies VERY strongly.
If you want 2.6, just use Fedora instead.
This is much more likely than it running OS X. And probably a lot more useful too.
/. anyhow? I guess maybe they want to encourage discussion, but in this case, they've encouraged discussion that is off topic. IBM is releasing a POWER 5 Linux machine - lets talk about IBM, Power, and Linux, not Apple.
Why is it you have to ask a really dumb question to get a submission posted to
When did IBM start using Redhat on the Power achitecture? It's been SuSE for a long time now hasn't it?
Here is the answer...
http://www.redhat.com/software/rhel/kernel26/
because most of the features important to Redhat has already been backported to their "2.4"
The thing is that Redhat isn't targetting the same market, as say Fedora or Suse.
That's why they created Fedora, otherwise all you guys would be bitching about redhat using 2.4 on your desktops.
They have their OS certified by many 3rd party makers of propriatory software, such as Oracle. Stuff like that takes a lot more work then just slapping 2.6 into a OS and making sure that everything works.
Everything has to work the way Oracle (for example) expects it to work, and Oracle is only going to tell Redhat the minimal it is needed to get it running, since it's closed source.
Don't worry, Redhat isn't dropping behind, it's just that they've adopted a much more long term-style revision policy compared to other distros. When they switch to 2.6 it will be a relatively cutting edge version of 2.6.
Which should be pretty soon. Also PPC developement is going to be falling a bit behind x86 developement due to the relative popularity of the different platforms.
Are you suggesting the fortune 500 companies spending thousands of dollars on RHEL 3* deployments should have either expected a kernel less then 6 months old in the intial RHEL 3 release? Or perhaps that their shiny new product certified to keep component version numbers stable for 5 years suddenly do a major version kernel upgrade 6 months into the product life cycle?
* RHEL 3 is the only Red Hat distribution you could be talking about. All other RHEL versions came out before kernel 2.6, and FC2 and FC3 do use kernel 2.6. FC1 won't get it because FC2 is halfway through it's own life cycle (which means FC1 is old & busted).
so now it's almost as good as the x68 target.
:) At least that system had a nice Castlevania game on it that managed to get a PS1 port to the US. (Castlevania Chronicles)
Almost as good as the X68000 so far? I'd say there's a bit more work to do
It would be cool if it didn't suck.
Good thing the kernel's open source, then. There are things like XPostFacto which make OS X work on older Macs by providing the necessary drivers/etc and faking things as necessary, for instance.
too busy to read the TITLE? this is even lazier than me. RTFT.
No, because OSX does checks to look for Apple-specific hardware on boot.
Interestingly, if you boot OS X using Pear PC a message appears during verbose boot stating "Warning: Apple Mac I/O Self Test fails", but then continues to boot. It would seem that OS X knows it's not Mac hardware, but doesn't care.
http://freshmeat.net/projects/mol/
http://www.maconlinux.org
Sorry for the AC post
PowerPC RISC architecture was developed by IBM in the late 80s / early 90s. Apple, IBM and Motorola formed a triumverate to further develop the architecture. IBM came into the deal with the 601 series processor already in development. When Somerset Park was shut down, Motorola inherited most of the physical assets, while all three companies retained ownership over the intellectual properties. The last processor series developed in concert between the three companies was the PowerPC G3.
Motorola and IBM diverged on development after the G3. Motorola was very interested in further developing vector processing, while IBM focused on better enhancing the core of the processor. Hence, then next iteration of the series from Motorola was known as the G4, while IBM went on to develop the Power 4, using similar underlying core architectures, though Motorola was stymied by clocking problems that didn't seem to be as much of an issue for the Power 4 processors.
The G5 processor that Apple is using now is actually a variant of the Power series from IBM that has included vector units. The Power 5 is also developed from the same core. Call them cousins if you will. So it would not be beyond the scope for someone to find a way to run Mac OS X Server to run on a Power 5 architecture. In fact, about the only thing stopping that development, I bet, is the threat of litigation from Apple.
This was mentioned in an article in the Wall Street Journal today. The article is regarding vendor-backing of LSB2. Near the end, the WSJ stated this product is meant to compete with Sun and HP workstations. Link to related story, as WSJ's requires subscription services.
Linux: The world's best text-adventure game.
I can confirm this... PearPC always made me wonder why people AREN'T making mac clones right now!!! It's definately possible... Obviously i doubt you could get a special deal on os X or sell it advertising it that way, but nothing against you selling a ppc box with a retail copy of OS-X bundled with it...
replacing it with NEW Folger's Crystals! (lets see if they notice the difference)
It is just irrelevant to the marketing initiative and the goal of IBM. Why the hell should IBM cares about the PowerPC on the desktop when Apple is already providing a solution? Go and buy Apple!
IBM is just unrolling the red carpet for Linux to enter enterprise data-centers in some of the most skeptical and demanding industries.
The most interesting feature is the virtualization engine on the four processors model. Given what it is costing to some banking customers per server on the floor, while some are idle most of the time and only justified because they need a "separated box for security reasons", this single feature will sell the box by tons. And I know a customer who would benefit right away from this to replace about 50 servers by two or three of these. And two-third of these servers are Sun boxes. IBM is likely to get the integration project using their virtualization engine, they will lost some money on the maintenance since the remaining third is IBM boxes, but they will get fresh new cash for the new boxes, the project and kick-out Sun. Anything else they could wish to have?
Achille Talon
Hop!