Slashdot Mirror


SGI to drop Irix for Linux

bpdlr (who admits to being a PC Week writer) sent us a story that proclaims that SGI Will Drop IRIX in exchange for some little no-name penguin oriented OS that nobody has heard of. I'm hearing rumors of a new Linux based mega server coming out of SGI, as well as some hugely scalable systems. Interesting stuff.

148 comments

  1. Re:Support for Linux on R[3-4]000 would be nice by davemc · · Score: 2

    I don't remember directly, but take a look at http://linux.sgi.com and ask there. SGI has funded development for Linux for Mips, but not for all platforms. Currently I know it's on the Indy, and Challenge/S

    --
    Open Source Ronin
  2. Re:Yeah baby... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Apple has mighty fine color matching software because they control the OS, computer, and (if you're doing it right) the monitor.

    Nobody prevents you to do that with Linux. At worse you just have to supply your own X server and libraries.

    I can understand SGI wanting to get out of the OS business, but not to make their graphics software better.

    Maybe competition with PC is the problem for SGI. If they switch to Linux they have the perfect upgrade path: Linux on PC (nowadays with numerous users, and just about every computer science student) -> Linux on SGI. Before: applications on Windows NT -> Irix (which not every one knows).

  3. Re:Sell your SGI stock. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, lets see how long they still make these motherboards and so on.
    The big pipes you are talking about are the 2.6? GByte/s connection between chipset and memory.

    The don't control the cpu interface so this bandwidth is not seen by the processor only the video system.

    The same way they lost the CPU war they will also loose the Graphics war. And when intel comes out with a new chipset with more bells and all,
    people will go buy that instead of a SGI box that
    offers less.

    SGI Cabalt chipset - 2.6 GB/s
    intel 840 chipset - 3.2 GB/s

    Mind you all this is in the chipset not visible to
    the processor.

    if you want big pipes get a DP264 Motherboard
    from compaq. it has an alpha that has a
    5.2 GB/s connection to memory (aggregate for 2 cpu)

    or an XP1000, it as a 2.6 GB/s connection to memory. and you can actually use that bandwidth
    in programs.

    What I see for SGI is that they need to use their
    name and fancy designers. to make boxes just
    like DELL, and maybe people will like their cool
    colours and buy.

    This is what you get when you have a ceo that bets his entire company on the future products of anohter company. (esspecially one that wants to kill your current products).


  4. Re:This journalist is a comlete dickwad by Performer+Guy · · Score: 2

    I work for SGI any you're post is completely inaccurate. SGI will continue to support MIPS and IRIX. SGI has NEVER announced dropping support for IRIX and it STILL doesn't intend to. Even this article points out that we have a MIPS roadmap for R12k R14k and R16k. The overall title of this slashdot article is completely misleading. The article isn't by SGI even it doesn't say SGI is dropping IRIX. I suppose to a salivating slashdot audience the notion of Linux displacing a grown up OS sounds exciting, but it just isn't ready to replace IRIX feature for feature so dropping that OS is NOT an option.

  5. SGI's long road from greatness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    SGI has gone from making CPU's, OS's, chipsets, Video systems

    to making motherboards, chipsets and video cards.
    Soon they will only make video cards and then after that they will only sell prepackages systems from INTEL, and then after that they will be sold to some other company. maybe DELL.

    And after that DELL will see its profits thin out
    when INTEL starts making everything. and the
    compute companies become intel's distributors.

    Before that happens, SGI will die. the products
    they have now that seem cool will fizzle out
    soon just take a look at their VW.

    The big pipes people talk about are the 2.6 GByte/s connection between chipset and memory.

    The don't control the cpu interface so this bandwidth is not seen by the processor only the video system.

    The same way they lost the CPU war they will also loose the Graphics war. And when intel comes out with a new chipset with more bells and all,
    people will go buy that instead of a SGI box that
    offers less.

    SGI Cabalt chipset - 2.6 GB/s
    intel 840 chipset - 3.2 GB/s

    Mind you all this is in the chipset not visible to
    the processor.

    if you want big pipes get a DP264 Motherboard
    from compaq. it has an alpha that has a
    5.2 GB/s connection to memory (aggregate for 2 cpu)

    or an XP1000, it as a 2.6 GB/s connection to memory. and you can actually use that bandwidth
    in programs.

    What I see for SGI is that they need to use their
    name and fancy designers. to make boxes just
    like DELL, and maybe people will like their cool
    colours and buy.

    This is what you get when you have a ceo that bets his entire company on the future products of anohter company. (esspecially one that wants to kill your current products).



  6. Re:Yeah baby... by Zurk · · Score: 1

    actually its easier than solaris for admins and the screen res (1600 x 1200) is by default and a real pleasure to work with. of course if they got rid of nodelocked license servers and other shit i'd be a *lot* happier....

  7. Re:Questionable statement in the article by Zurk · · Score: 1

    its also the first os where its harder to compile for 64bit than 32bit...the 64bit libraries are usually never around when you need em. :)

  8. Accuracy in reporting by Performer+Guy · · Score: 1


    I have in the past seen slashdot and it's subscribers bemoan the accuracy of reporting in the mainstream media. Unfortunately here we have an example of the sensationalist inaccuracy worthy of the lowest tabloid.

    Nowhere in the article was dropping Irix or it's support announced. There is even less which attributes any statement even similar to an SGI representative.

    In future at least read the referring article before choosing a title.

  9. Re:Sell your SGI stock. by Zurk · · Score: 1

    yes..but i'd challenge you to find a $10K IRIX which would run rings around a $10K alpha box running linux.

  10. Its too bad about SGI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But people, let us not weep over the death of
    IRIX and the terminal illness that afflicts SGI,
    let us rejoice that SGI has seen if fit to bequest
    us with their technology.

    Let us stand up and cheer. Shout as loud as you can and pour libation for the good deeds of our
    passing friend.

    There is still hope in Alpha.
    We shall walk tall and sing merry songs when
    EV68 arrives.

    So mates sing with me EV68 EV68,
    70 SpecINT, 120 SpecFP, now that is merry song.

    www.alpha-processor.com




  11. Re:This journalist is a comlete dickwad by Uniqs · · Score: 1

    Of course not. But they are transitioning their *workstations* to IA-64.

    And as far as IRIX goes, they have a good reason NOT to port it to IA-64. It is much too reliant on the underlying hardware for primitives, and likely would not perform as well on a large IA-64 box (that is assuming that IA-64 will scale to 64+ CPUs).

    The truth is out there... Now go find it!!

  12. Re:4 cpu's and 32 bits only? by Uniqs · · Score: 1

    Go get yourself a kernel book or two and READ about why Linux won't scale well. Then let us know what you learn.

  13. Re:Is this really a good thing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Does anyone else here think that SGI might be diabolical enough to make a "better" Linux-based graphics platform that is largely proprietary? Maybe they wouldn't/couldn't do that, but I'll have to say it makes me a bit nervous. A distro is fine, but massive changes could start a fork.

    If changes aren't necessary, they are better off not making them (otherwise they might as well stay with IRIX). If they are necessary, it is always better to have a hacked Linux than a closed IRIX.

  14. Re:Yeah baby... by jedidiah · · Score: 1

    SGI controls the OS as much as anyone else does if that OS is Linux. One simply doesn't need to be the sole owner. They can just concentrate on those parts of the OS that people would buy their hardware for.

    --
    A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  15. Re:Questionable statement in the article by davemc · · Score: 1

    IRIX was also the first 64b OS that fully and transparently supported 32b apps. No recompiling, no massive performance degradations... davemc

    --
    Open Source Ronin
  16. Re:What? by Geoff · · Score: 1

    Don't forget system accounts with no passwords!

    --

    Computers are useless. They can only give you answers. -- Pablo Picasso

  17. Not Likely by drewbie · · Score: 1

    As much as I love Linux, IRIX beats the heck out of linux when it comes to scalability. Ever see a 64 processor Linux box? I think Linux will get there in the future, but why would SGI kill IRIX now?

    Sounds like a rumor to me...

  18. Good news, but unlikely to change SGI much. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    SGI bagging IRIX/MIPS? Doubtful, to say the least.

    Although I am thrilled that they are participating in the Linux Revolution (tm), they have much bigger fishies to fry.

    According to www.top500.org, SGI is owning the supercomputer market. They account for over 1/3 of the world's installed base, and almost 1/2 of the world's supercomputer horsepower.

    To even think that they'll push Linux in that direction is a stretch, since they already have IRIX doing it, and doing it well. Its not that I think its a bad idea; its just not practical for SGI to do it.

    I also seem to remember reading in one of the trade rags, (infoworld?) that SGI was designing hardware that would scale as high as 16k processors. (I might be wrong...this was about a year ago)

    1. Re:Good news, but unlikely to change SGI much. by stuboy · · Score: 1

      well yeah, being that they only now own cray. the biggest of the bad assed supercomputing companies.

      --
      hi =)
    2. Re:Good news, but unlikely to change SGI much. by Maledictus · · Score: 1

      According to www.top500.org, SGI is owning the supercomputer market. They account for over 1/3 of the world's installed base, and almost 1/2 of the world's supercomputer horsepower.

      And according to page 13 of SGI's 10Q from Q3 1999, the supercomputer market and the desktop Unix market is shrinking. And they didn't turn a profitable quarter last Q because of Cray.

      They're simply following the money with what they would consider a midrange offering.

      Don't get me wrong, I think it's fantastic news and I think this is where SGI needs to be. And it's especially good news for me because I'm right smack-dab in the midrange market. But if I had a dime for everyone who said that SGI is making money because of the supercomputing biz, I'd have enough of a slush fund to buy SGI's loser stock. (That might be considered a donation to a non-profit organization! 'Course, there's last quarter's actual good news...)

      I don't think SGI will forsake any market -- supercomputing, desktop IRIX, whatever -- for Linux. Frankly, they'd be fool to. A lot of Guv'ment stuff riding on mega-multi processing power. But not enough for SGI to be consistently profitable in the past.

      Linux is SGI going for diversification. *sigh* As is NT. And I'm sure there's more to come. If SGI is smart -- and there's some indication of intelligent life in Mountain View -- they'll go for the profitable markets, not the stuff that people think is "cool."

      Hell, everyone else is...Sun...HP...IBM Anyone I missed?

      --
      Consigned to flames of woe.
  19. Sell your SGI stock. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    SGI used to be the coolest company around; everybody wanted to work for them, as they had hardware and software that nobody could beat.

    But look at them now. They're going to be selling Merced/Linux systems. They don't make the hardware and they don't make the software. I'm sure the systems they sell will be high-end and quality systems, but we've seen a giant fall. (They still make really cool cases, though.)

    1. Re:Sell your SGI stock. by bgarcia · · Score: 1
      But look at them now. They're going to be selling Merced/Linux systems. They don't make the hardware and they don't make the software. I'm sure the systems they sell will be high-end and quality systems, but we've seen a giant fall.

      Now, don't go overboard. The correct statement is that they don't make the processor and they don't make the operating system. They will most likely continue to make all the other hardware, and all the other software. They make their own motherboards, AFAIK, and these puppies have some pretty fast, fat pipes pumping the bits around.

      99 little bugs in the code, 99 bugs in the code,
      fix one bug, compile it again...

      --
      I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar.
    2. Re:Sell your SGI stock. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree completely. SGI is forsaking all of their customers. If I wanted to run Linux and Intel, I would not purchase SGIs. And now that their focus has changed, Im starting to make Sun sales contacts for all my future needs. Hopefully they will realize the folly of catering to a Linux market that is on the whole only interested in money, and is willing to sacrifice performance and reliability to save a buck here and there. The Linux cult does not want SGI to use Linux on their hardware, they want SGI to fix Linux for them so they can take it and use it on their bargain basement home built PCs.

    3. Re:Sell your SGI stock. by Justin+Norman · · Score: 1

      so, because sgi has decided to move into a lower-end workstation market, as well as their previous markets, they dont deserve credit? All that they're doing, is getting their part in a lucrative market with the x86 boxes.. they still sell mips systems, and still packed with irix to boot ;P

      Justin

      --
      "Short, tall, fat, skinny, from the highest king to the lowest man, everyone uses the potty." - Brak
    4. Re:Sell your SGI stock. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's isn't big money to be made anymore in proprietary processors, or OSes. If you held SGI stock over the past few years, or you held Dell/Compaq stock, which would you be happier about now?

    5. Re:Sell your SGI stock. by Jeff+Monks · · Score: 2
      SGI is forsaking all of their customers.

      Most of SGI's customers left a while ago. That's why they're doing this - they aren't able to compete anymore. The faster and cheaper PCs get, the less likely it is that $10,000 workstations from SGI (and others) are going to be considered an option.

      It's happening across the board - everybody (not just SGI) is reorganizing around Intel on the low end, because they can't compete on price with Intel systems, and the majority of low-end systems are sold on price, not performance. I'm not saying it's right, but I would rather see SGI stay alive by selling Linux than die a slow, wasting death clutching onto IRIX...

      P.S. Before anyone feels the need to point it out, I know that the $10K SGI will run rings around the $3K Intel box - but try to convince a purchasing manager of that...

    6. Re:Sell your SGI stock. by jobo · · Score: 1

      Hey!

      I run Linux on a rather expensive Intel SMP box and wouldn't mind buying a SGI box if I could get linux to run on it. I (and probably a lot other linux users) use Linux because it suits my needs and I got the source if somethings needs changing, now *thats* what linux is all about, not saving money...

  20. Re:Yeah baby... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If I had to guess, SGI isn't looking to focus all of their efforts just on graphics -- if they were, they'd probably stick with IRIX rather than trying to get Linux up to shape.

    What seems more likely is that SGI feels like they're being locked out of larger, more lucrative markets like web serving and databases. This seems to be the main reason why they officially droped the name "Silicon Graphics" and adopted "SGI" as their name -- they don't want to be associated with just graphics anymore.

    As it is now, IRIX is probably too specialized for graphics and they'd rather move to a platform (one which, being open source, they can exert some creative influence on) which has a more general user base and application support.

    Just my $0.02

  21. Re:It ROCKS honeychile by William+Wallace · · Score: 1

    Thanks, I think you're illustrating the main
    problem I have with Linux -- it's zealot users.
    (Actually, I have a problem with zealotry from
    any OS camp, including my beloved BeOS.)

    -WW

    --
    Why are there so many Unix-using Star Trek fans?
    When was the last time Picard said, "Computer, bring

  22. Re:Questionable statement in the article by Uniqs · · Score: 1

    ..it scales up to 256 processors

    2048. Go read the latest supercomputer list. A single image IRIX-based Origin 2000 supercomputer is number six on the list. But the claim about IRIX being the first 64-bit OS is true if you are talking a *single image* system.

  23. Re:It ROCKS honeychile by Uniqs · · Score: 1

    Thank you. About time somebody said it. It's the *IGNORANT FOOL* users that spread their misinformed opinions about Linux that actually hurt it. Rather than *acknowledging its weaknesses* (HINT - even LINUS does - read the kernel mailing list) - those zealots are the ones who only hurt Linux as serious users point to them and say "ha, I'll be damned if I'll run an OS if people can only spout off such garbage."

    I used to say the same thing when I ran OS/2. I've used them *all*, and I know the advantages and disadvantages as well as the architectures of each. Now if only everyone else did and could remain civilized...

  24. What about the software packages? by wynlyndd · · Score: 1

    Where does this live their high-end graphic applications?

    --
    "Dogs and cats, living together...it's mass hysteria!"
    1. Re:What about the software packages? by brettw · · Score: 1

      By the time IA-64 is dominant I think that SGI will be helping to ensure that Linux will be up to speed on issues necessary for that.

      So... how about a donation to the Linux project of some parts of the IRIX filesystem, eh? Journaling?

  25. Re:Scalable Smailable by Uniqs · · Score: 1

    You don't even know what SIMD, MIMD and MISD mean, do you?

  26. Make it clear, this is just for Merced, not Mips. by Ricdude · · Score: 4

    Simple point of clarity. Also a minor goof in the article:

    "Linux is a 32-bit operating system and does not scale beyond four processors."

    A suppose those alpha types have just been wasting 32 bits this whole time, eh? =)

    --
    How's my programming? Call 1-800-DEV-NULL
  27. Re:Which operating systems have you used ? by Uniqs · · Score: 1

    An educated opinion is a well-informed opinion. The following is my list, in order of decreasing complexity and (what I think) are admirable design characteristics and flaws:

    1. IRIX - fully multithreaded, very scalable, but VERY expensive (prohibitively in most app areas)
    2. WinNT - fully multithreaded, flexible, not too scalable, though it has a large learning curve and suffers from backward compatability
    3. Tru64 (formerly Digital UNIX) - microkernel based, flexible, fast, scalable, great networking OS
    4. QNX - microkernel, RTOS, small footprint. Main drawbacks are expense, copying overhead in the OS and only (currently) runs on X86
    5. BeOS - microkernel, fast, efficient, great development tools, portable. Doesn't scale to really big boxes.. At least not yet.
    6. Solaris - scalable, though it's too close to classic UNIX architecture for my taste and ships rather broken until you apply a gazillion patches.
    7. Linux - older architecture kernel, over-hyped, doesn't scale well for the lack of fine grained kernel locks, not fully POSIX compliant (yet). Is easy to develop on and has a wide base of portability; it's also cheap and supports a lot of lower end hardware, which makes it great for clustering (MIMD supercomputers) and research.
    8. FreeBSD - fast, efficient, but supports only X86 and doesn't scale very well. With Alpha support, it's winning some of my favor.
    9. VxWorks - great for embedded stuff, not much use to the average consumer; it's a RTOS.
    10. LynxOS - another RTOS, POSIX compliant, runs on PPC and X86, but it's rather broken unless you're reserving it for a dedicated application.
    11. MacOS - it's pretty but it's reminiscent of Win 3.1. MacOS X will change that.. But for now the Apple OS is rather worthless IMHO.
    12. HPUX - it's a kludge; it's a miracle it works. HP makes good printers. That's about all I give them credit for.
    13. Win95 - it's not an OS, get over it.

    VMS would be close to the top of my list, but it's dead.. Anyway WinNT is largely based on the good things of VMS from a computer science perspective, as is Tru64; hence they're on the top of my list.

    This opinion is based on ease of use, flexibility, scalability, TCO, portability, and of course- adherence to classical OS theory of each OS. My two cents.

  28. A journalist "proclaims"?? by Syslevel · · Score: 1

    Shouldn't the language be "claims" rather than "proclaims."

    An official with the company "proclaims" things. A journalist just "claims" them.

    I'm not denying the possibility that the rumor is true, just pointing out that it's, um... a rumor, isn't it?

  29. Re:Support for Linux on R[3-4]000 would be nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    SGI sent me a IRIX 5.3 CD (only, no manual) free of charge after I called them because I had a hard time finding IRIX for my R3k box. I was suprised, cool company.

  30. Huh? by Wakko+Warner · · Score: 1
    Joe Torre's been manager since the mid 90's, and, as long as he doesn't retire, he's not going anywhere anytime soon. Before that, Showalter was there for a good 3 or 4 years. I can't think of many other teams who have only had two or three managers in *this* decade. Blue Jays? Nope. Gaston's gone. Red Sox? Nope. They've had a half dozen or so. Braves? Okay, maybe, but all Bobby Cox has to do is show up with the pitching he has on that team. Mets? Nope. Expos? Maybe; they *know* they suck and no manager can help *that* (have they canned Alou?) Orioles? Nope. Rangers? Nuh-uh.

    It's common knowledge that, when a team is doing poorly, the manager is the first to go. It's no surprise that the Yankees went through quite a few managers in the late 80's. Name me a few teams who keep managers longer than the Yanks have held onto Torre. however.

    - A.P.
    --


    "One World, One Web, One Program" - Microsoft Promotional Ad

    --
    "Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
  31. Hey... by Wakko+Warner · · Score: 1
    ...who kicked the crap out of whom last week? 21-1? That's a frigging football score. Your Indians can come back when they've had a little more batting practice; we'll be ready.

    - A.P.
    --


    "One World, One Web, One Program" - Microsoft Promotional Ad

    --
    "Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
  32. Yeah baby... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is great news.

    1. Re:Yeah baby... by Nuno+Leitao · · Score: 0

      This is ridiculous!! Of course SGI isn't going to
      drop IRIX... because IRIX is better than Linux...!!
      Please...!!

    2. Re:Yeah baby... by Rational · · Score: 1

      Actually, the default screen res is 1280x1024...

      It does look a lot nicer at that res than NT does at 1600, though.

      --
      "Be nice, veer left, and never stop thinking" Iain Banks - Walking On Glass
    3. Re:Yeah baby... by Rational · · Score: 1

      It may be a headache for sysadmins, I don't know, but it's the best OS *ever* for an end user. I'm ten times more productive on my little Indy than on my shite NT box with four times the horsepower.

      --
      "Be nice, veer left, and never stop thinking" Iain Banks - Walking On Glass
    4. Re:Yeah baby... by Syslevel · · Score: 2

      Possibly SGI has decided that they can write better proprietary Graphics software if they don't have to also maintain the platform it runs on. It would be a strategic move to "give away" the base operating system in order to regroup and focus on what SGI is best at: high end graphics. The OS is just the black tar surface. The applications are the high performance vehicles that roll across it.

      I doubt (but then this whole subject is based on rumors yet, is it not?) that SGI is giving away the crown jewels yet.

    5. Re:Yeah baby... by jmcmurry · · Score: 1

      Ummm, isn't that backwards?

      Apple has mighty fine color matching software because they control the OS, computer, and (if you're doing it right) the monitor.

      I can understand SGI wanting to get out of the OS business, but not to make their graphics software better.

      At any rate, investment from SGI towards Linux can help in a few areas everyone says it's needed: CPU scalability and high-end (esp. 3D) graphics.

  33. mental ray is already ported to Linux by bofh23 · · Score: 1
    MAny apps such as softimage and what not allow beowulf style rendering. This of course, is depending if the apps get ported.

    mental ray , the renderer that most Softimage shops use, is already ported to Linux (x86 and Alpha) as well as many other flavors of Un*x. It lets a master machine farm out tiles to worker machines and it is multithreaded (takes advantage of SMP) as well.

  34. Re:Make it clear, this is just for Merced, not Mip by Syslevel · · Score: 1

    Well, considering what I have been reading in a few newsgroups recently about how badly some 32-bit Linux apps port to Linux Alpha, yes.

  35. Yeah, right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Like $400 for 6.x _media_ (not _license_ or _support_)?

  36. Why does everyone... by Graymalkin · · Score: 1

    berate SGI now? The only real mistake I see lately is their logo change. They still support MIPS in their other systems. The Visual Workstations are a step in the profit direction. Instead of having to use all of their own software (having a hardware and software division gets very expensive) they can now use Windows or Linux on their workstations and servers. They're doing their best to port their IRIX stuff to linux, which is much easier than porting to NT because linux is entirely open source. Their hardware is nothing to scoff at either, a 64bit PCI bus isn't something Amptron offers of their motherboards, and their total memory bandwidth is very high. Yes I know the 810 will get 3+ gigs of bandwidth, but will people really use it? Having a completely locked down motherboard is something I thought might be going away. SGI's board is expandable as any other 440BX board.

    --
    I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
  37. SGI and Linux @ SIGGRAPH by Andrew+Lockhart · · Score: 2

    In a couple weeks at SIGGRAPH, SGI will be demoing hardware acceleration and IRIS Performer under linux.

  38. Re:Support for Linux on R[3-4]000 would be nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Y2K patches for IRIX are available for free download. Just because you cant go look for them, doesnt mean they arent there. The Linux cult is just always to quick to slam any thing not linux. As for not being able to get an actual version of Irix,that can only be laziness. Nice to see a company betting their future on nothing but hype a nd the steamroller effect of the linux cult.

  39. Re:Support for Linux on R[3-4]000 would be nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, but it still required IRIX. They trapped system calls to do X, and last time I checked it seemed like SGI wasn't going to help them with the Graphic Cards info so they could write an X server. Not that it mattered so much, before my indy's power supply died, Irix ran like a charm, and I would never of changed it over to linux since all my lovely video capture stuff would have been useless.

  40. Re:illiterate? by rogerbo · · Score: 1

    >they are also porting IRIX to IA64

    No they are not. This was killed. You are correct that MIPS is still to be irix and they are still developing future versions of irix for mips cpu's but they have offically canned the port of irix to ia64.

    This cnet article confirms it:

    http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,38162,00.html? st.ne.fd.gif.f

    complete with quotes from sgi senior executives.

  41. Article missing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't know if its me, but somehow the article comes up blank. All I get is what looks like the bottom where it asks to comment on the article or e-mail it to a friend. Whats up with that?

    1. Re:Article missing by coreybrenner · · Score: 1

      A letter I sent to their comments email:

      To: Newswire@VNUBPL
      cc:
      Subject: SGI to use Linux...

      Hello, and warm greetings from the U.S.,

      In your article about SGI opting for Linux on its
      IA64 based machines, there were a couple of
      factual errors concerning the Linux operating
      system.

      Since roughly 1995, Linux has been a 64bit OS.
      It currently runs in full 64bit mode on Compaq's
      Alpha (the first 64bit chip supported by Linux,
      way back in the day), and also has a port to
      Sun's UltraSPARC family of CPUs, which are 64bit
      (though I hear there are a couple of problems
      making 64bit memory access work correctly
      because of some weirdness in the way Sun
      structures its hardware).

      Linux' scalability is certainly not up to snuff -
      especially when compared to that of IRIX or
      Solaris, but it will run on 16-processor systems
      (just not well). Its sweet-spot is currently two-
      processor systems. Look for version 2.4 to
      increase the scalability of the OS kernel, as it
      will have support for finer-grained locking and
      management of resources.

      Further, the Linux OS already runs on the MIPS
      family of processors, as well as other big-endian
      CPUs (such as the aforementioned SPARC). While I
      agree that there is little chance of Linux on
      IA64 running binaries made for IRIX on MIPS, the
      issue at hand isn't Linux per se, but a question
      of machine architecture. For instance, it would
      be technically possible and quite feasible to
      make IRIX/MIPS binaries run on Linux/MIPS. It
      may be that I misread this part of the article,
      however.

      Just a couple of points, hopefully rationally
      discussed,

      Cheers,

      --Corey



      Their response:

      Thanks for pointing that out. We've posted a
      corrected version and the incorrect story is
      being removed. Sorry these things slip through
      the net sometimes - we appreciate your
      astuteness!

      Regards

      Andrew Craig
      Deputy News Editor
      VNU Newswire

      --
      Not only will they not deserve liberty or safety, Mr. Franklin, they will be DENIED both!
  42. irix dead? by zaf · · Score: 1

    great! now open up the source to Irix so we can use the good parts in Linux

    1. Re:irix dead? by um...+Lucas · · Score: 1

      I sincerey hope that this doesn't get moderated down to Flamebait! :)

  43. This journalist is a comlete dickwad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He makes it sound like an irrevocable fact that SGI will drop Irix AND Mips. I'd like to see an independent confirmation on *THAT* one. Would SGI jettison 2/3 of its sales, and leave the supercomputer market for good? Not too bloody likely!

    1. Re:This journalist is a comlete dickwad by waddgodd · · Score: 1

      I'd hope that this journalist makes it sound like a fact, since it wasn announced over a year ago that the MIPS line was no longer being manufactured and IRIX wasn't being supported any more. Face it, it IS a fact

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you
  44. All get new managers every fre years? Um, Lasorda? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >I can't think of many other teams who have only had two or three managers in *this* decade.

    Um, what about Tommy Lasorda? Until he retired for health reasons a couple of years ago, he managed the Dodgers for DECADES. Through thick and thin, Tommy didn't get tossed for a few bad seasons. This is the kind to team spirit, comradary, and loyalty that's being killed out of baseball these days. Sad.

  45. Re:Makes sense for SGI, Sun, IBM, HP... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think the truth is SGI realise they haven't got a chance of establishing Irix as the standard UNIX on IA-64. Linux's popularity on x86, however, will provide the software base necessary to sustain it as a viable platform on IA-64, even if it's unlikely to become the standard.

    The other UNIX vendors are still vying fiercely for the top spot, and really are contenders. To abandon their operating systems at a time like this, with control of UNIX market on the Intel 64-bit platform at stake, would be madness.

  46. Re:Makes no sense for SGI, Sun, IBM, HP... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm afraid your line of questioning misses the point entirely. In the UNIX market today, the money is in the hardware, and each of the major vendors provides a different and incompatible hardware platform. If the UNIX market moves to IA-64, these hardware fiefdoms will disappear.

    Remember what happened to the PC market in the 1980s, when IA-32 established itself as the standard platform: the PC vendors were either driven into the ground or transformed into packagers of commodity systems. At the same time, the collapsing hardware prices and exploding volume of shipments became a gold mine for the software companies (especially Microsoft, which owned the dominant OS on the IA-32 platform).

  47. The idea that SGI would drop Irix is ridiculous by doom · · Score: 1

    It presumes that SGI is capable of making a decision.

  48. Re:Questionable statement in the article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't Multics 48 bit ?

  49. hmm... by Darth+Maul · · Score: 1

    I've been an IRIX user for a long time (own
    an Indy), and must admit this might actually
    be a Bad Thing. Now, don't get me wrong, I
    also have a Linux box, and use it most of the
    time, but IRIX really is amazing. I hate to
    see it go. I'm hoping that ALL Irix software
    will be ported. If that happens, then I'll
    switch this over to a Good Thing. Irix is
    by far the most stable operating system I
    have ever used. I would love to see the same
    software minds who came up with it now focus
    on Linux. We're in for a fun ride!

    --
    --- witty signature
  50. Re: IRIX 64 by mvw · · Score: 1
    The transistion from 32 bit IRIX 5 to 64 bit IRIX 6 was a disaster at that time.

    So maybe they do themselves a favour not porting it to IA64.

  51. Support for Linux on R4000 by dej05093 · · Score: 1

    Thanks for the hint!
    The WWW-Site at http://www.linux.sgi.com indeed
    is a good starting point to get informations
    about Linux on SGI/Mips and SGI/Intel. There
    is a distribution called "Hard Hat 5.1" derived from RedHat 5.1.
    It should be possible to use Linux on a large
    number of R4x00 and R5000 SGI machines. For other
    brands of R3000 (DEC 2100 etc.) linux ports have
    been done.

    Freely available patches for Irix (according
    to A.C.)
    - Are you sure about Irix 5.3?
    - We are talking about R3000 Indigo for which you
    can't get an Irix 6.x
    - Never change a running system ;-) Hopefully
    they will at least be usable as terminals,
    with or without Linux

    1. Re:Support for Linux on R4000 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      >Freely available patches for Irix (according
      > to A.C.)
      > - Are you sure about Irix 5.3?
      From http://www.sgi.com/tech/year2000/o_s.html


      IRIX 5.3, 6.2, 6.3 and 6.4
      SGI also provides patches and workarounds that make the base IRIX releases 5.3, 6.2, 6.3, and 6.4 Y2K-compliant.

      As for R4000 Indigos, they are still support up to and including IRIX 6.5 (if you wish to run it or not is up to you). R3000 processors are limited to 5.3+xfs

      And as for changing a running system, how many Linux users havent updated their system at all in more than 5 years. Perhaps the way Linux is updated gets people thinking it is the way all systems work. Patch updates under IRIX are very s imple to install and back out of. The download will be the longest period of time in the procedure. Inst or swmgr will take care of the rest.

      AC
      mgoumans@irix.org

  52. Re:Oh my god! What about xfs?!?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    Don't worry.

    SGI is migrating down to linux the features they think linux needs to move up to the type of hardware SGI wants to build (think Origin and Onyx with Merced in place of MIPS). XFS and the direct rendering infrastucture are the most visible of these.

    It will take time for these, and other less visible, Irix features to migrate to Linux - which is why SGI is still commited to supporting Irix on MIPS through two more processor generations (R14K and beyond).

    I can't comment on the state of XFS for Linux, SGI said they would need some time to put the source in a releaseable form - they need to make sure they don't release copyrighted code etc.

  53. bad URL? by ywwg · · Score: 1

    Anyone else have trouble viewing the page? All I get is what looks like a frame asking me if I want to comment on the story.

  54. Updates by Jeff+Mahoney · · Score: 2
    I wrote into their comments address and pointed out a few factual errors.

    As a result, an updated version has been posted here.

    The errors corrected are:

    • Linux not being only 32-bit
    • IRIX being the first 64-bit UNIX (OSF/1 was).
    • The MIPS processors are R12000, R14000, R16000 not just the numerics.
    -Jeff
    1. Re:Updates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Blah..

      The link is: here rather.

      I had the right link for the original post, but for some reason the comment poster/editor doesn't like quotes in an HREF.

      -Jeff

    2. Re:Updates by Jeff+Mahoney · · Score: 2

      Here, rather.

      For some reason the comment poster/editor doesn't like quotes in links.. And, it posted my first update as an AC..

      Is something broken?

      -Jeff

  55. Re:Great news, but what about NT? by Straker+Skunk · · Score: 1

    WinNT strategy: You can get a box with Linux, and install NT over it. But why would you want to hobble your k-rad SGI hardware like that?

    (j/k)

    Seriously, however, they'll still be offering NT. There's still a lot of demand for it-- lotta Microsoft-only shops out there-- and it'd be foolish to turn down that customer base.

    Look at it this way: The money they make selling NT solutions will help them develop even better Linux solutions };-)

    --
    iSKUNK!
  56. Which operating systems have you used ? by i · · Score: 1

    ..to give an perspective to Your comments..

    Thomas Berg

    --
    Mundus Vult Decipi
    1. Re:Which operating systems have you used ? by Darth+Maul · · Score: 1

      here's the list:

      Irix
      Solaris
      Win95
      WinNT
      Linux
      Ultrix
      HPUX
      MacOS

      --
      --- witty signature
  57. Re:Makes sense for SGI, Sun, IBM, HP... by Darrion · · Score: 1

    This is the most interesting spin on this article I have seen yet. The idea of Linux being a unifying force in the Unix world. This could be the thing which really brings Unix to be THE dominant OS for business.

    Imagine if Solaris, HP-UX, IRIX, etc. were all to be replaced with Linux. A single Unix which has the developement efforts of not only the Linux community, but all the major computer companies. I think this is something which could actually make M$ sweat.

    Unfortunately, I do not see this as being a trend. IBM, HP, SUN all have way too much invested in there commercial Unix variants to drop them. As several others have pointed out, this is simply the end of Irix on Intel, not on MIPS. This is still a wonderful thing for the Linux community, and will undoubtedly lead to significant improvements to the Linux kernel, and hopefully the XFree project also.

    Good for SGI. Good for Linux. Hopefully, bad for M$.

    --
    I think I would be in heaven if only I could find a Linux job.
  58. Re:Questionable statement in the article by kps · · Score: 1
    The MIPS R4000 was the first 64-bit CPU (back in 1989 or 1990, IIRC).

    The first 64-bit microprocessor, perhaps.

    Nothing against MIPS parts -- my main workstation at home and my main games machine both use 'em (the latter is faster, of course) -- but 64-bit machines existed well before that.

    Just wait; when Merced-based PCs become available, the idiot press will tout them as the first 64-bit computers.

  59. you are talking about Crays and Unicos, not Irix. by Merlinus · · Score: 1

    SGI is already going to bag MIPS (eventually)
    because it is such a niche chip. The super
    computers that SGI "owns" are Crays, not SGIs,
    and they run Unicos, not Irix. I'm sure Unicos
    will be around for a while, but it makes total
    business sense to drop Irix in favour of Linux.

    Any hardware that "SGI" is designing to run 64k
    processors will run Unicos, not Irix.

  60. Re:Makes sense for SGI, Sun, IBM, HP... by tweek · · Score: 1

    Another thing that this may aloow is for linux users to see ports of some killer apps such as softimage, maya and others along those lines. This, in combination with the killer graphics speed of SGI hardware, would make linux a viable replacement for CG. Something else that might benifit is improvment of the tcp stack. MAny apps such as softimage and what not allow beowulf style rendering. This of course, is depending if the apps get ported.

    --
    "Fighting the underpants gnomes since 1998!" "Bruce Schneier knows the state of schroedinger's cat"
  61. Re:Oh my god! they killed xfs!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Merced in an Onyx? Won't they need like 4 of them? Where are they going to find room for those huge slabs of steaming slag? Do they know how they will duct all the smoke and dripping oil out of the case?

  62. Scalable Smailable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ever heard of clustering?

  63. Perhaps they should add some more management. by Greg@RageNet · · Score: 1

    Adding layers of middle management is a good solution, see what its done for them in the last couple of years.. Get to hiring those pointy haired boss types. And if you go over personell budget? Fire some engineers and replace them with contractors!

    (If you dont get the joke: SGI has the largest percentage of middle management compared to the rest of the tech industry and silicon valley)

    --
    Slashdot, would a spell-checker for posting be too much to ask? It's not rocket science!
  64. There are more surprises in the pipe by HeUnique · · Score: 3

    Well, I cannot reveal my sourced, but:

    * SGI plan to modify Linux to run on 64 & up processors..
    * They're porting Linux to MIPS (not just the R3000, think MUCH bigger numbers - R10000 & up)
    * And some more surprises.

    As soon as I'll have more info, I'll post it on /.

    --
    Hetz (Heunique)
  65. Re:What a pedestrian list! by Darth+Maul · · Score: 1


    aah, bite me.

    Just chill, man. We're not competing here.
    Or did you need to justify your inflated
    ego?

    --
    --- witty signature
  66. Kill all proprietary unices anyway! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This was about time, if these manufacturers haden't screwed up so badly with their very own incompatible proprietary unix varients there would probably never have been something called windows, and micros~1 would still be trying to sell that crappy QDDOS to IBM. But noooo we had to compete by screwing over our customers now hadn't we? I'm glad to see that at the very least some of these high and mighty corporations have come to their senses before micros~1 burries them!

  67. Rocks in your head. by SkyWriter · · Score: 2

    I guess no one wants all that 'mathy stuff' anymore. Serious computing is at an end.

    IRIX 6.2 with IDO:

    sgi3 10# apropos matrix | wc
    1006 24627 153747
    sgi3 11# apropos eigen | wc
    244 6123 42143

    Redhat 5.2:

    stupidpc:~# apropos matrix
    matrix: nothing appropriate
    stupidpc:~# apropos eigen
    eigen: nothing appropriate

    But why reinvent the wheel?
    When all you need is the valve stem....

  68. Correct URL by Agrajag · · Score: 2

    The URL in the story doesn't seem to work, but this one does:

    http://webserv.vnunet.com/www_user/plsql/pkg_vnu_s earch_mo.right_frame?p_story=87942

  69. Re:Makes sense for SGI, Sun, IBM, HP... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is nuts. Linux is many years away from hitting the high end. I find it highly unlikely that HP or Sun will be casting off their OS's soon.
    I think people tend to underestimate just how far we have to go with linux to get into the higher enterprise market area.

  70. SGI logo by SkyWriter · · Score: 1

    You still have the wrong logo.
    The 'sgi' one is for the new
    silicon graphics.

    1. Re:SGI logo by Darth+Maul · · Score: 0

      >> if youre not a big sgi fan you shouldnt be
      >> commenting.

      If you're too afraid to register with your
      real name you shouldn't be commenting.

      ;-)

      --
      --- witty signature
  71. Re:Makes sense for SGI, Sun, IBM, HP... by cweber · · Score: 1

    What you say above is exactly was SGI states if you ask them. They seem to have a bit more insight than some of their competitors (or perhaps arrive at the insight a little quicker?).

  72. Re:Sell your MS stock. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    MS used to be the coolest company around; everybody wanted to work for them as they had hardware vendors by the balls and software that nobody could beat.

    But look at them now. They're going to be selling vendor-lockin/one size fits all systems. They're going to be broken up by the Federal Judiciary and they cannot decommoditize the open standards and protocols in time. I'm sure the systems they will sell will be really expensive and improving with each delay, but we've seen a giant fall. (They still have really pretty packaging, though)

    Just sharing the love.

  73. Re:What a pedestrian list! by Darth+Maul · · Score: 1


    Why is everyone so confrontational here on
    /. anyways? Sheesh. Must be all the caffeine
    in the systems.

    I read the article, too.
    Fascist.

    ;-/

    --
    --- witty signature
  74. Re:you are talking about Crays and Unicos, not Iri by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes the high-end supers are crays, but the Origin 2000 series scales as high as 512 procs (although the NCSA one says it has 1024) and it runs IRIX.
    The NCSA's is #27 on the top500 list.

    www.sgi.com/origin/2000_specs.html

    Either way, it is most likely that IRIX and UNICOS will merge to become one high-end solution.

  75. Time to BUY SGI stock. by NoWhereMan · · Score: 1
    I wonder how many of these guys use SGI equipment. I also wonder if they read the details which seemed to spell out the distinction between Mips/Intel hardware. I have plenty of SGI hardware to play with and despite the great performance their stock has dropped from higher values of years gone by.


    I see this as good news for SGI because a Linux community will strive to make their hardware look even better. This could be a wake up and smell the coffee situation as the Linux community works with systems that show the power of SGI graphics!

  76. Freely redistributable Irix by howardjp · · Score: 1

    I think that if SGI is going to drop Irix, it would be wonderful to see them release portions of their code under a BSD-license, especially since Irix grew out of BSD (and became the first POSIX certified BSD-derived OS).

  77. SGI is not killing Irix by cweber · · Score: 1

    Read the article closely (and others that deal with the subject)! SGI is not killing Irix. They just opted to not port it to IA64.

    At the end of the article it is spelled out clearly that there is MIPS CPU roadmap for R14000 and R16000. For a few years minimum, we will see MIPS/Irix systems alongside with IA64/Linux systems being sold and supported by SGI.

  78. Did you check #160 ??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now that we are talking about the top500 list anyway, maybe you have forgotten the fact that Linux can run on almost any hardware out there, which probably includes most of the hardware on that list!

    It sounds like you are expecting Linus to start designing his own hardware especially for linux.
    (Now that might not be a bad idea, it would probably rule :)

    1. Re:Did you check #160 ??? by DaKrushr · · Score: 1

      mumble mumble www.transmeta.com mumble blah blah

  79. Yankees cheat like the Oakland/L.A/Oakland Raiders by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >the winningest team in baseball, baby!!

    They only win more because they CHEAT!!!!!
    Example: '77 World Series, Dodgers and Yankees: Reggie Jackson sticks his *ASS* out to deliberately get hit by a pitch and draw a walk. Fscking NY umps choose not to notice that. Dodgers lost game 1 by 1 run. This is just one example. Truly the Yankees are the Raiders of baseball. Pathetic!

    Yankees also have no sense of team loyalty among the players. And managers go in and out like a revolving door. Just business right? The spirit of baseball is DEAD within the Yankees. dead, Dead, DEAD!!!!!

    -Dodger Fan (we may be in last place [this year], but at least we don't cheat.)

  80. Re:Well I sure as hell can! by um...+Lucas · · Score: 0

    Geez! I use Linux where I see fit. It's been extremely stable in my experience. But I also use the Mac OS, Be OS, Win 98, Win NT... whatever platform which has the tools to complete the project I'm performing. And it's completely valid to point out that the linux community has some percieved shortcomings. Those need to be addressed in order to achieve the World-Wide Domination that is so often stated on these message boards.

  81. Er... by Foogle · · Score: 1

    Um, they already gave us XFS, didn't they? We just haven't used it yet.\

    ------

  82. 4 cpu's and 32 bits only? by stuboy · · Score: 2

    umm... somebody want to tell them that it supports up to 16 cpu's (on the 2.0, don't know about the 2.2).
    oh yeah and what about ultra pengiun? a few more bits there, 64.
    damn e-zine writers... don't want to read the howto's.... just like a newbie.

    --
    hi =)
    1. Re:4 cpu's and 32 bits only? by jerodd · · Score: 3
      Linux doesn't scale very well beyond two CPUs, and beyond four, adding more CPUs can sometimes make things worse. Thus, it can't scale to 16 CPUs.

      Ultra Penguin doesn't let user space programs run in 64-bit mode. This makes it rather useless for 64-bit applications. AlphaLinux can, but the gcc/gas code generator for the Alpha is not very good--thus AlphaLinux is slower than NT (which is shameful).

      We've still got a lot of work to do, but it's good to see SGI's announcement--they can give us some help on the high end (as they've already done with things such as their large-memory patches).

      Cheers,
      Joshua.

      --
      --jon. Postel is dead. May we all mourn his, and our, loss.
    2. Re:4 cpu's and 32 bits only? by ...+James+... · · Score: 1

      True -- but linux doesn't SCALE well at all with more than 4 cpus. With linux in it's infancy, though, and now with the support of Sun, this may not be an issue in a short while.

      James

    3. Re:4 cpu's and 32 bits only? by red_dragon · · Score: 1

      Yes, just four CPUs. It doesn't scale that well yet. It can START 16 processors, but won't utilise them all appropiately. So, just four (with 2.2).

      The part about Linux being 32 bits is way off, though, as you noted. Linux runs as a 64-bit OS on Alpha and UltraSPARC. But then, the article's author's mentality is surrounded around Wintel.

      --
      In Soviet Russia, Jesus asks: "What Would You Do?"
  83. Questionable statement in the article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Irix was the first 64-bit operating system and it scales up to 256 processors.

    Irix the _first_ 64-bit OS? I tried to find out where to research the truth of this, but besides memory I don't know. So, does someone here remember if there was a 64-bit OS before IRIX?

    1. Re:Questionable statement in the article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just wait; when Merced-based PCs become available, the idiot press will tout them as the first 64-bit computers

      They'll also claim that Win2000 will be the first 64-bit OS, whenever MS gets it running on Merced!!

    2. Re:Questionable statement in the article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The MIPS R4000 was the first 64-bit CPU (back in 1989 or 1990, IIRC).

      Since the R4000 was used first in SGI boxes, which ran IRIX, I think their claim is correct.

  84. Yeah, but on WINTEL by mholve · · Score: 0

    Irix will still be top o' the heap on MIPS.

  85. UUhhh, 32-bit? by mholve · · Score: 0

    Shouldn't that be 64-bit? Alpha? Hello...

  86. ya right! by learned · · Score: 0

    And the Ford Probe was gonna replace the Mustang

  87. What a pedestrian list! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What, no

    MPE/ix,
    OS390,
    OS400?

    Get a little outside the mainstream, Darth. Sheesh.

    And read the article next time.

    1. Re:What a pedestrian list! by Xtacy · · Score: 1

      OS400? BLEH! sick OS they made us take in first semester college course! hate it, and they go on about how secure it is, looked to me like security through obscurity

      what a pain in the ass it was

    2. Re:What a pedestrian list! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how bout DRDOS/MSDOS/OS/9/VAX/VMS/OSF/1/OS/2/QNX ?

  88. Yours is broken too, here's the real one: by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1

    Yours doesn't work either. (It works if I select it and cut&paste, but not when I click it. It looks like the URL you put in the HREF=... part doesn't match what you are showing on the screen.) What you show on the screen was right, though. Here's the corrected correct link.

    --

    Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

  89. Re:YANKEES!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Uhhhhh....
    They have the same record, bub...
    Yankees 62-41
    Indians 63-41

    and considering how the Yankees completely clobbed Cleveland last week...

  90. Re:Make it clear, this is just for Merced, not Mip by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    this will change as more users & developers get 64-bit systems. I remember the annoying transition from a mips R4400 processor running irix 5.3 (32-bit) to a R10K on an O2 running irix 6.2 (64-bit)....It was painful but relatively short as everyone began to modify their programs or release 64-bit patches. The mips pro compiler which does both 32 & 64 bit compiles (as does gcc) really helped the transition.

  91. Maya? by SeanCier · · Score: 2

    Okay, what of Alias|Wavefront? I've heard no rumblings about a Maya (or Composer, etc) port to Linux. This is the 'killer app' for a significant market segment... and it's *owned* by SGI. We know it's portable -- I mean, it runs on IRIX, HPUX (that was the port that the commerce department required when SGI bought Alias and Wavefront, IIRC), and NT. I've heard rumours of a Houdini port... I can't believe SGI would ignore this apparent hole in their corporate strategy -- I mean, it's looking more and more like they're moving from 'Linux as a Visual Workstation server solution' to 'Linux as a total desktop solution'. And smeggin' tanj, Maya is just *cool*.

    -spc

  92. Crud - mine's broke too. Slashdot is wrecking it. by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1
    My link got altered by slashdot's HTML filtering, I think. It has the same problem yours did. I typed in this:
    <A HREF="buncha stuff here">
    buncha stuff here
    </A>
    And it deleted the stuff after the HREF= when I submitted it.

    Rob, something is broke on your site I think.

    --

    Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

  93. Does the 1400 use the Lithium crossbar chipset? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does this thing run on the Lithium chipset, like the VWs do, or a similar crossbar implementation? It seems that would give it a distinct advantage over typical bus-based Intel architectures.

  94. I can't believe this was moderated down! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is every anti-linux sentiment a Troll? This guy made some valid points that linux users should probably heed. I'm not a Linux fan either by the way. I have my own reasons which I won't get into, but it disturbs me to see such blind Linux worship around here.

  95. amateurs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OS/360, MVS, Plan 9.
    take that.

  96. VAX/VMS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Like I said, VAX/VMS

  97. Great news, but what about NT? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow, if this is article is right, then this is great news.
    But I'm wondering, how will their WinNT strategy fit into with this (if indeed it is true)? Not that I'll use NT ever again, but I'm curious.

    1. Re:Great news, but what about NT? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They've said in the past that they favored Linux because it was easier to tie people into proprietary messes ("value-added") with Linux than with NT. NT is a pretty standardized package, and MS won't let you sell your incompatible variations.

    2. Re:Great news, but what about NT? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dream on FUD-meister, SGI said no such thing.

      So you think Linux=proprietary and NT isn't? Do you write your own lines? You should be in comedy...

  98. illiterate? by jnazario · · Score: 1

    it deals with Intel, not MIPS. MIPS will still be IRIX. they are also porting IRIX to IA64 (no new info there) and wil help make Linux 64 bit on IA 64.

    why is this news again? seriously, this is nothing new, except the misleading idea that IRIX/MIPS is dying.

    jose nazario

    --
    jose nazario jose@biocserver.cwru.edu
  99. What? by noxie · · Score: 1

    "We are looking at getting chunks of Irix technology into Linux," said Shiffman.

    setuid /bin/eject!

    *duck*

    --
    All rights reserved, all wrongs reversed.
  100. Support for Linux on R[3-4]000 would be nice by dej05093 · · Score: 1

    Is is already possible to install Linux on these
    old systems being an ordinary Unix admin? It
    really would be nice if SGI would do some
    polishing and make a linux distribution for their
    old day systems.
    We have four Indigo systems with an R3000 for
    which we can't get an actual version of Irix and
    therefore no Y2K support.


  101. It ROCKS honeychile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You don't get it, do you? The Linux Legions are advancing ever closer, ever nearer to World Domination. Linux floats my boat. I hope it sinks yours. Have a good day!

  102. Re:Make it clear, this is just for Merced, not Mip by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    uh, well.. speaking as someone who regularly develops on alphas, whoever is spouting that garbage is wrong. it sounds like someone has not been enlightened to the path of "long int" yet. porting "32-bit" applications to alpha is easy, but only if you have 0.5*(clue).

  103. It wasn't.. Unicos was first.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The mega scalable Unicos, which powers the Cray super computers was first.... (on the commercial level) there probably was some little unknown that beat them... But cray knew how to get the $$ to power such huge ventures... (by selling them to the govt...

  104. Linux and scalability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Welp, since Linux is even less scalable than NT, this implies that SGI will be pouring cash into kernel improvements--good news, whether SGI stays afloat long term or not.

  105. Re: IRIX 64 by Alastair · · Score: 1

    The word 'disaster' is completely wrong. Overall, SGI have a pretty good record in transitioning to new API's. IRIX64 works quite well.

    I can believe they're thinking twice about the port to IA64, however.

  106. Re:Is this really a good thing? by Alastair · · Score: 1

    'Diabolical enough'? - No.

    'Proprietary'? - some. I'd say that would be the hardware though. Not the software.

    SGI really want to sell their hardware, above all. There will be no 'fork', why should there be?

  107. IRIX/MIPS is dying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is dying... along with every other UNIX derivative except Solaris. NT continues to eat away UNIX marketshare, and Linux and Solaris continue to grab larger chunks of the UNIX sub-market.

    And, frankly, anything on the MIPS processors is going to die, with SGI having already complained that delays in Merced production have forced them to delay discontinuing MIPS processor development.

  108. Re:SGI logo a gogo! by SkyWriter · · Score: 1

    By MY measure I am a bigger SGI fan than you.
    By MY measure the new logo is appropiate for
    Intel/Linux Boosters.
    By MY measure the cube is for the pre-new logo
    machines (excluding the VPC, of course)
    So I should be commenting here, and I do.

    Btw: any SGI fan would know that 'SkyWriter'
    is the name of such a machine that is appropriate
    for the cube logo, and as such, rightly bears it
    proudly.

  109. this is total BS by nester · · Score: 1

    if sgi is really going to drop irix (which i SERIOUSLY doubt), they are going to be making a BIG mistake. irix has features (such as guaranteed io bandwidth) that linux doesn't. i think this rumor is pure bullshit.

  110. Ebay! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Go check at ebay. I always see a few IRIX cd's for sale at reasonable prices.

  111. Is this really a good thing? by chamont · · Score: 1

    Does anyone else here think that SGI might be diabolical enough to make a "better" Linux-based graphics platform that is largely proprietary? Maybe they wouldn't/couldn't do that, but I'll have to say it makes me a bit nervous. A distro is fine, but massive changes could start a fork.

    1. Re:Is this really a good thing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What in the world would be wrong with that? SGI can never fork the kernel into a proprietary version (that's the purpose of the GPL) but if they develop some awesome graphics libraries and tools for it and package it all together for lots of money, I see no problem with that. In fact, odds are they would want to improve the linux kernel to make their new graphics code more efficient (hence their efforts on GLX) with their own proprietary code.

      SGI has a pretty small market and in these situation, software licenses will always be far out of reach for most consumers. I see no problem with this. Besides, what's so diabolical about giving people more choices in the software they use?

  112. Makes sense for SGI, Sun, IBM, HP... by HenryFlower · · Score: 5
    Questions:
    1. Do you make your money off of hardware, support, consulting, and add-on software, or on your proprietary OS?
    2. Are there unique strengths your company has? (IBM=global enterprise services, SGI=visualization, Sun=network is the computer)
    3. In the short or medium term, are you shifting to an Intel hardware strategy (ia32, ia64)? (SGI, HP, IBM?)
    4. In the short term, can you live with less than enterprise level? (SGI)
    Why spend oodles of money developing the OS whose only function is to create a market for your hardware, services, unique value, if you can spend less money developing those features into Linux? In the final analysis, your competitive strength is not your OS (especially SGI, IBM, HP; Sun seems to be more tied to Solaris), and it is defocusing to pretend that the OS does anything more than help you get into the market where you strengths show.

    The problem for the moment for IBM, Sun, HP, is that Linux is seen mostly as an Intel solution, and that it doesn't scale up to enterprise levels. But it makes perfect sense for SGI to phase out Irix in favor of a Linux with all the support for visualization that plays to SGI's strengths. And it makes sense for the rest to shift R&D from proprietary OSs, into Linux, to develop the enterprise level features and strength on non-Intel platforms to allow them to phase out AIX, HP-UX, Solaris, etc.

    This is a clear win for Linux (witness XFS, etc.), and we ought to encourage this as much as possible.

  113. Oh my god! What about xfs?!?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Linux filesystem is the one place where NT continues to beat us over the head. I was thrilled when I heard SGI was going to port their journaled filesystem, xfs, to Linux. Now I'm worried. Anyone know the xfs status?

  114. Wouldn't be a bad idea by AmirS · · Score: 1

    It's probably just very expensive for big vendors to maintain their own flavour of unix, so just put the best bits of their own unix into linux, and allow the open source community to look after it, with allthe other bebefits linux brings (multi-platform compatibility etc).
    Maybe if more vendors do this (competing to add technology to linux ???) then we'll see it improve much further than it already has.

  115. Re:Make it clear, this is just for Merced, not Mip by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow, your posting is very concrete.

    Nevertheless, I haven't run into problems using Linux on Alpha for about a year now. The so-called "32-bit Linux apps" can be easily compiled on Alpha without any trouble. Of course, some authors make such great assumption as sizeof(int) == sizeof(void *), but more and more people seem to realize that this is not true. 32-bitism - die!