Slashdot Mirror
IBM Launches Linux-Only Mainframes
An anonymous reader writes: IBM is introducing two mainframe servers that only run on Linux. It's part of a new initiative from the Linux Foundation called the Open Mainframe Project. "The idea is that those companies participating in this project can work together, and begin building a set of open source tools and technologies for Linux mainframes, while helping one another overcome common development issues in the same manner as all open source projects." IBM's hardware release is accompanied by 250,000 lines of code that they're open sourcing as well. "Ultimately the mainframe mainstays are hoping to attract a new generation of developers to their platform. To help coax new users, IBM will be offering free access to the LinuxOne cloud, a mainframe simulation tool it developed for creating, testing and piloting Linux mainframe applications." Canonical is working with IBM to bring Ubuntu to mainframes.
I'm sorry, but Ubuntu on mainframes? Ubuntu is the linux distribution FURTHEST from being appropriate for a mainframe - it's heavily targeted towards desktop users, particularly those with a lower level of expertise (or a lower desire to put work into their OS) than the average linux user. What's more, it's adware/spyware now, which is definitely something I'd hate to have on a mainframe - the last thing you want is your OS transmitting and receiving data at random!
...of all the things that Linux isn't designed for, is a mainframe OS, because either the mainframe hardware will have to be changed to support Linux's "view" of the world, or Linux has to get a ton of drivers.
Now I'm stumped by your comment. Linux has no problem with "a ton of drivers", but the fact is, only a few drivers are actually needed.
I understand IBM's mainframe division is trying to stay relevant, but they need to focus on getting people to use a mainframe, not trying to make a mainframe act as a PC.
What makes you think Linux makes a mainframe act as a PC? Linux runs on many disparate architectures, some of which look very little like a PC. Sure, Linux forces every architecture to present a page table abstraction derived historically from intel's model, but is that is mainly because that simple model makes sense, and not particularly inefficient for architectures with a different approach to emulate it. Other than that, life in mainframe land is much like any other architecture, especially now that with virualization rampant, everything looks a lot more like a mainframe inside today.
Things like lockstep CPUs and such, leave that to the hypervisor, and let Linux view it as one CPU in /proc unless there are critical exceptions that need to be passed to the client OS.
Why would you think it works any differently than that?
However, what really needs to be done is sell what a mainframe does best, and that is reliability.
How do you imagine IBM sells mainframes? There was a time when customers had a lot of idle capacity siting around that could be recycled as Linux servers, but now IBM's only compelling argument is reliability. But that argument is a cruncher for some customers.
What IBM needs to do is have a case for having the hardware be expensive and reduce the number of man-hours needed to be put in to code a solution.
The mainframe proposition is not about maintenance cost, it is about the business cost of even temporary interruption or failure.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.