Slashdot Mirror


SGI Acquires Linux Networx Assets, LNXI Dead?

anzha writes "It seems that that Linux Networx, the pioneering Linux supercomputing company, has gone belly up. SGI announced that it has bought the core assets of LNXI. Furthermore, the rumors are that the doors were locked and employees were just given their paychecks. This analysis, on the other hand, claims that SGI has 'made employment offers to many LNXI engineers.' It's unclear what kind of support will be extended to customers of LNXI's Clusterworx Advanced products. What does this mean for the future of Linux supercomputing?"

18 of 96 comments (clear)

  1. Belly Up? by eldavojohn · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "It seems that that Linux Networx, the pioneering Linux supercomputing company, has gone belly up." What causes you to think that? Have they filed for bankruptcy? Is there some indication they were failing?

    According to most definitions of 'belly up':

    1. (idiomatic) Dead or defunct, often used with go, went, or turn. (see go belly-up)
    After several financial failures, the organization went belly up. I'm pretty sure that since SGI has slowly become a niche provider for creating solutions for a few specific customers, they see Linux Networx as another good partner in another niche market. SGI isn't at the greatness they once were but it looks like they're holding their own in what they are doing.
    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:Belly Up? by neurovish · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "It seems that that Linux Networx, the pioneering Linux supercomputing company, has gone belly up." What causes you to think that? Have they filed for bankruptcy? Is there some indication they were failing?

      According to most definitions of 'belly up':

      1. (idiomatic) Dead or defunct, often used with go, went, or turn. (see go belly-up)

                          After several financial failures, the organization went belly up. I'm pretty sure that since SGI has slowly become a niche provider for creating solutions for a few specific customers, they see Linux Networx as another good partner in another niche market. SGI isn't at the greatness they once were but it looks like they're holding their own in what they are doing. Since SGI hasn't turned a profit in forever and usually loses about $100M a year, I'd say that having your assets bought by them would qualify you for dead.
    2. Re:Belly Up? by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Since SGI hasn't turned a profit in forever and usually loses about $100M a year ... False. Their net income for 2006 was -$146.19 Million while their net income for 2007 was $222.61 Million. You may have been correct but at least in 2007 it looked like they have turned things around.
      --
      My work here is dung.
    3. Re:Belly Up? by richlv · · Score: 3, Informative

      then you haven't been paying attention to http://www.top500.org/list/2007/11/100.
      nnote the 3rd position (and there are several others down the list).

      --
      Rich
    4. Re:Belly Up? by mr-aero · · Score: 2, Informative

      They have made offers to LNXI staff according to this article: http://www.hpcwire.com/hpc/2135016.html

    5. Re:Belly Up? by Sen.NullProcPntr · · Score: 2, Informative

      False. Their net income [google.com] for 2006 was -$146.19 Million while their net income for 2007 was $222.61 Million. You may have been correct but at least in 2007 it looked like they have turned things around. Not sure where google gets their numbers from but you shouldn't believe everything you read on the interwebs;-) If you go to the source you will see nothing but net losses for FY2007 [PDF] (which ended on June 30, 2007) and FY2008 [PDF] (which somehow ended December 29, 2007!!!).
      The change in FY dates may have caused the confusion in the totals.

      Disclaimer: I buy high and sell low.
  2. The future of Linux supercomputing by jrumney · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What does this mean for the future of Linux supercomputing?

    It means the future of Linux supercomputing will be backed by SGI. You don't think SGI bought an already dead company just to kill it, do you?

    1. Re:The future of Linux supercomputing by Maller · · Score: 2, Interesting

      One Linux-based HPC vendor bought out another Linux-based HPC vendor, this will not really effect Linux on HPC. All of the Top 10 of the TOP500 use Linux in one way or another. The Blue Genes have SLES on the service nodes and CNK on the compute nodes. The SGI is SLES with add-ons. The HPs are Linux clusters. The Crays are SLES on the service nodes and either Catamount or Linux on the computes.

      Linux is very pervasive in HPC and becoming more so. Since I know a little something about Cray, the newest vector and scalar lines both use Cray Linux Environment (CLE) formerly called Compute Node Linux (CNL). Cray's CNL was released in second half of 2007 and already over half of the Cray processors in production are running CLE on the computes instead of Catamount, the very lean, proprietary compute node OS.

  3. What? by xzvf · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Weak company buys weaker company just to shut it down? Am I missing something? What percentage of the super computing market does SGI and Linux Networx have now? With the top 500 dominated by Linux systems I think Linux based super computing is in good shape. Sure customers that took a chance on Linux Networx MAY be screwed, but only because SGI isn't in a strong position to be around much longer. Someone who cares should look into the deal and the involvement of any LBO firms. Smells kind of SCOish.

  4. Dude.. wait, what? by ackthpt · · Score: 4, Funny

    I thought SGI was already dead.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    1. Re:Dude.. wait, what? by Hythlodaeus · · Score: 3, Funny

      A dead company came back to life and now controls another dead company. Does that make it a lich company?

      --
      For great justice.
    2. Re:Dude.. wait, what? by fm6 · · Score: 2, Informative

      In a sense, they did die. They went bankrupt, and their stockholders lost their entire investment. But they had a few products worth saving (massively parallel Itanium and x64 systems), so new investors bought the name and those products. Pretty much a new company, and not a major player.

      It's actually kind of similar to Cray, which SGI bought, ran into the ground, and then sold to Tera Computer. Tera did get a couple of Cray products (others stayed with SGI or had already been sold to Sun), but I suspect that Tera just wanted to rename itself Cray.

      The workstations are no more, and there are no more Irix/MIPS systems. Everything runs Linux. Hence their interest in a high-performance Linux company.

    3. Re:Dude.. wait, what? by jd · · Score: 2, Funny

      According to my Rolemaster manuals, if it's a greater Lich and it's posessed by a greater Demon (ie: switches to *BSD), it becomes a Black Reaver.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  5. Oh fun by downix · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The last time SGI bought a supercomputing company things did not go well. SGI has managed to shoot themselves in the foot constantly for over a decade. At one time, they were an industry leader (even have an Indy sitting before me now) now they're in trouble and know it. Their abandonment of MIPS and embrace of Itanium gained them short term benefits, but gutted the long term profitability and flexibility of the company. Now they're desperate for growth before the stockholders abandon them utterly.

    Suggestion SGI, invest in new CPU's, the market is wide open for a solid x86 competitor now that PowerPC's given up the ghost there. Partner with Sun, use the OpenSPARC, make a consumerish-model that fits into customized Opteron motherboards, do something other than stand there admiring your own navel!

    --
    Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.
  6. Supercomuting is off the shelf now by mlwmohawk · · Score: 3, Informative

    The economies of "COTS" "Consumer Off The Shelf" technology and the advancement of projects like MPI and PVM, as well as gigabit ethernet has made fast and effective clustering almost as easy as plugging in an Ethernet cable.

    Seriously, while "programming" an application takes some chops, the infrastructure to run it is trivial.

    "In my day" we had, at best, 10mbit ethernet. We had to use special drivers to get out "Dolphin Interconnects" working right. We had to really study the network topology to get the message passing right.

    These days, forget about it. virtually all ethernet is interconnected via a switch so collisions are no longer an issue, switches don't cost thousands of dollars anymore, network interface cards use busmastering PCI or PCI2 (not ISA), The networks are 100x faster. The computers are 100x faster.

    What's the point of a company who's products only tend to mitigate (not eliminate) the inevitable diminishing returns? Can you say buggy whip? Yea, sure, people still make them, but they are not in common use.

  7. A prudent investment. by flaming-opus · · Score: 2, Interesting

    SGI probably got the technology for pennies on the dollar. When a company closes its doors, the investors and creditors are left holding the bag, and they're interested in getting out from under a little bit of that debt, and do it quick. If they don't unload the intellectual property quickly, it decays, looses mindshare in the marketplace, and falls out of date. This is doubly true in the world of linux, where you have to keep up with the kernel changes, and the changing distributions.

    Similarly, SGI has changed a lot of their focus from their expensive cache-coherent single-system-image servers to clusters of small/cheap nodes. SGI has great compiler technology, data-management software, and systems integration knowledge. They may not, however, have great systems-management tech. You don't need that for single-system-image machines. Even the big columbia machine at nasa is only a cluster of 20 machines. You can do a lot of stuff by hand, or with creative shell scripts, when you're dealing with 20 machines. With 400, it's tougher. I'm sure this won't solve all their problems, but I bet it will help quite a bit.

  8. Former CEO of Linux Networx Buys Old Company by ryanisflyboy · · Score: 2, Interesting
    The CEO of SGI used to be the CEO of Linux Networx:

    Robert "Bo" Ewald
    Chief Executive Officer

    Bo Ewald joins SGI as CEO with over 25 years of relevant industry experience in the high performance computing markets. He is a seasoned industry veteran with a successful track record as a CEO. Rather interesting, don't you think?
  9. As a former SGI Employee, I'm forced to ask: by cutecub · · Score: 2, Funny
    ... SGI still exists? I had no idea.

    Where have they been lately?

    Are they cold at night?

    Do they need food?

    Have they been incarcerated?

    Maybe I should make a donation?

    ... ok. Maybe I'm being a little snarky but, c'mon guys, you're keeping a really low profile for a company that's trying to sell stuff.

    -S