Where are the Itanium computers? This port isn't of much use to nearly everyone.
They're not here... yet...
Where are the PPC64 computers?
Lessee... IBM's RS/6000 170 and 270 workstations, p640 rack-mount server, and Winterhawk and Nighthawk SP nodes.
Granted, Linux probably isn't much use on SP nodes, but would be very appropriate on the other systems I mentioned. The p640 is a powerful 4-way machine capable of powering a medium sized web site or mail server.
How many people own an S/390?
This is totally irrelevant. These platforms aren't meant to be personally owned. However, many large corporations own S/390s and Linux is very handy on a partitioned S/390. Just imagine thousands of independent web servers on a single machine.
Heck, all of these ports require much hand-rolling. And you also mentioned hardware which the vast majority of people here have never even touched or seen- have you?
Again, whether or not people have touched or seen these platforms doesn't make them irrelevant. In fact, these platforms have more significance because they are the way toward corporate acceptance of Linux. NetBSD was recently ported to Dreamcast, which many people have touched and even own... but who cares?? The computer industry is a lot more than personal systems.
And, by the way, I see and touch these systems every day... at work. Maybe your opinion would change if you actually worked with computers.
Proof of concept ports, and ports that aren't deployed anywhere in the real world: these aren't of much use, regardless of if the port is of a Linux or a BSD.
I agree... But, I don't think that applies to these ports.
As part of our Open Source research initiative at my company, I was assigned the task of researching BSD and how we might use it to replace some of our more expensive AIX and NT systems.
Unfortunately, I had to stop at the install when I found out that BSD has no support for Token Ring devices. Yeah, we may be behind the times, and we're working on upgrading our network to fast ethernet, but as long as BSD doesn't have any token ring drivers, it won't find its way into our server room.
It's a pity. I would've loved to have replaced our firewall with OpenBSD.
Slackware uses a very rudimentary package database based on.tgz's and human-readable files. So far, this package management scheme makes the most sense to me. It's all completely standards-based and I don't need any special software to use it. I can untar and even fiddle with the install scripts before applying the packages if I want to. Otherwise a simple run of installpkg gets the job done in one step.
The only problem with it is that there's no real dependency checking and upgrades aren't always done cleanly. However, both those problems can be fixed in the install scripts of the package itself rather than the "database manager" or lack thereof.
With some fine tuning of standards, we could have a killer standard package management system that would work on not only Linux, but any UNIX-like OS.
So where does Slackware fit in all of this? I hardly think it springs from Debian seeing as it predates it. Also, Slackware is not non-profit, but neither are they targeting the end-user/pretty startup screen/corporate market with support contracts and proprietary add-ons.
I have to work in a room with 22 Dell machines of varying scale, 4 RS/6000 workgroup servers, a waist high AS/400, a rackmount system containing an IBM M-80 and several drive racks, a dual frame SP system consisting of 10 nodes with accompanying VSS and 3494, and an air conditioning unit with air blowing in through the raised floor. It's a wonder I can hear myself think in here.
Of course, the upside is that I get to actually see the cool stuff I'm working with and it's so loud and cold in here that people generally leave me alone.
Actually, there are plenty more differences than just an installation procedure...
Slackware uses BSD-style initialization scripts, while many other distributions use that convoluted mess of symlinks known as SysV-style. I personally think the BSD-style makes more sense and is a lot easier to mess around with, but that's me. This can result in incompatibilities when applications try to install themselves.
Each distribution has its own directory structure, so many "Red Hat compatible" applications have trouble finding the files they need.
Some distributions have their own package management system. Many use Red Hat's RPM format. Debian and Corel use Debian's.DEB format. Slackware uses plain old TGZ's.
Different distros may also include different sets of libraries or versions thereof. This can result in binary incompatibilities.
Why's everyone saying they still use Netscape 4 for Java? You can get the Sun 1.3 JRE as a plugin for Mozilla and it works great. Just go here to get it.
OK, so it's not free software, but neither is Netscape.
I used to have problems with it losing mail in the old milestone releases. Since I got.6, though, it's now my primary mail client. I used to use Netscape mail, since I am a Windows convert and text-based email just doesn't do it for me.
As for the news reader, that's supposed to be greatly improved with this new version. I guess I'll find out when I get it.
Much of the conversations about Linux-PPC seem to be about running it on Apple hardware. What about IBM RISC machines? I know a number of RS/6000 models are able to run it, and IBM has promised extending that to cover the entire RS/6000 (or pSeries) family. What do you know about when that promise might be a reality?
Also, very little older RS/6000 hardware seems to be able to run Linux (i.e. no MCA machines and only a few PCI machines). Is there much development being done to bring those machines into the fold? There are a lot of older RS/6000's out there, and they would be a perfect target for an OS like Linux, since AIX would probably be too expensive for someone with one of those. How close are we to getting more of those machines running Linux-PPC?
The OEMs aren't going to bow down to any of this. Microsoft doesn't want this either. They can easily kill this by not supporting it in their OS. The OEMs can easily kill this by not buying copy-protected hard drives. This gives the hard drive manufacturers no incentive to make these devices. And if the hard drive manufacturers simply refuse to do it (which they can do, by the way), then the entertainment industry won't have a leg to stand on.
Relax, folks. We have powerful allies on this one.
Sure, you could go ahead and build your own Linux box, but who's going to support it?
IBM used to be a hardware vendor. They've transformed themselves from that to a full IT services company. By shelling out the extra bucks for an RS/6000, you get not only a much more reliable and better performaing piece of hardware than that homebuilt Intel box, but you also get the company behind the box.
Plus, just because they support Linux doesn't mean they intend to get rid of their other OSes. The new IBM will sell you a support package for just about anything.
Boy, these are heady times. I used to think of IBM as the scourge of the earth, and now I actually wouldn't mind working for them.
Even Microsoft, they note, has said recently that its software effort will evolve into a service business.
I think we need to be wary about Microsoft's idea of a service-based software industry.
The recent developments at the Microsoft camp (.net and C#) point to a future where application software is served rather than distributed as finished goods. If you want to use Office 2010, you'll have to connect to some server on the internet and run it from there.
Microsoft is trying to move away from CD-ROM based software. We already don't even own the software on their CDs. The EULA takes away all the rights you normally have when you buy something.
I tend to agree with much of this, but I think you're taking it overboard...
Yes, I can see things like Office and widely distributed business apps becoming web enabled. However, the future of software is on the intranet, not the internet. I see Office 2010 as possibly being a server that sits in a company server room, but not at Microsoft headquarters.
CD-ROM software will not die as long as...
- People and businesses want to have ownership of what they buy. They want something they can hold in their hand and sell to someone else if they want. Also, most complex business apps are customized to meet individual business needs. Oracle would not be the major business player that they are if they sold the same apps package to everybody.
- Wide area network speeds do not justify running some apps from the internet as opposed to your local hard drive. Also, reliability is a huge issue. What happens if Microsoft's server goes down? Does the world go down with it?
- People who value security will not let this happen. Software vendors will have problems with people breaking in and stealing software, while users will be exposed to the dangers of having their applications and data open to anyone cunning enough to figure out how to get to it. The only true security is a broken connection.
However, I do agree that in the new software development model, the browser is more important than the OS. I think the open source movement has become misguided in that they've directed their energies toward competing against the monopoly OS, while the open source browser has yet to be fully realized.
Every mention I've seen of a port says they're being done for UNIX, as in "UNIX is a registered trademark of The Open Group." Nowhere is Linux mentioned.
It would be smart for Microsoft to port IE to Linux and give up on protecting their OS monopoly. With the new software development model, the browser is the more relevant tool.
IBM can't do that unless it decides to relicense AIX to the GPL, which, considering how many different copyright notices are in the startup screens, I see happenning when hell freezes over.
Instead, IBM will have a Linux compatibility layer on top of AIX. Basically, it will still be AIX, but with the added benefit of being able to compile Linux sources.
The only real news here is that a new version of AIX has been announced. This new AIX will also run on IA-64. The goal of the Monterey project was to create a UNIX(r) for IA-64, but since IBM accomplished this with AIX, they decided to kill the project.
Microsoft is starting to realize that in today's software development model, client-side OS is becoming irrelevant. This combined with Linux's rising popularity and the anti-trust case gives them an incentive to wrest control over other markets.
Microsoft probably sees the browser as the most important client-side component, and they'd be right if they do. If Microsoft successfully gains control of the browser market, then it won't even matter what OS you're running anymore. They'd still have us all locked in, even if we're using Linux. They'd be embracing and extending our free software platform!
If IE gets ported to Linux, Mozilla will have to seriously improve its development efforts to be competitive. So far we've gotten away with sitting on our laurels while the competition stayed away from our turf. We can't let that continue, or all the gains that GNU/Linux has made over Windows will not even matter anymore.
Slashdot Mirror
+++
+++
They're not here... yet...
Where are the PPC64 computers?
Lessee... IBM's RS/6000 170 and 270 workstations, p640 rack-mount server, and Winterhawk and Nighthawk SP nodes.
Granted, Linux probably isn't much use on SP nodes, but would be very appropriate on the other systems I mentioned. The p640 is a powerful 4-way machine capable of powering a medium sized web site or mail server.
How many people own an S/390?
This is totally irrelevant. These platforms aren't meant to be personally owned. However, many large corporations own S/390s and Linux is very handy on a partitioned S/390. Just imagine thousands of independent web servers on a single machine.
Heck, all of these ports require much hand-rolling. And you also mentioned hardware which the vast majority of people here have never even touched or seen- have you?
Again, whether or not people have touched or seen these platforms doesn't make them irrelevant. In fact, these platforms have more significance because they are the way toward corporate acceptance of Linux. NetBSD was recently ported to Dreamcast, which many people have touched and even own... but who cares?? The computer industry is a lot more than personal systems.
And, by the way, I see and touch these systems every day... at work. Maybe your opinion would change if you actually worked with computers.
Proof of concept ports, and ports that aren't deployed anywhere in the real world: these aren't of much use, regardless of if the port is of a Linux or a BSD.
I agree... But, I don't think that applies to these ports.
+++
+++
Oblig content: anti-aliased fonts are blurry and nasty.
+++
Unfortunately, I had to stop at the install when I found out that BSD has no support for Token Ring devices. Yeah, we may be behind the times, and we're working on upgrading our network to fast ethernet, but as long as BSD doesn't have any token ring drivers, it won't find its way into our server room.
It's a pity. I would've loved to have replaced our firewall with OpenBSD.
+++
The only problem with it is that there's no real dependency checking and upgrades aren't always done cleanly. However, both those problems can be fixed in the install scripts of the package itself rather than the "database manager" or lack thereof.
With some fine tuning of standards, we could have a killer standard package management system that would work on not only Linux, but any UNIX-like OS.
+++
So where does Slackware fit in all of this? I hardly think it springs from Debian seeing as it predates it. Also, Slackware is not non-profit, but neither are they targeting the end-user/pretty startup screen/corporate market with support contracts and proprietary add-ons.
+++
I have to work in a room with 22 Dell machines of varying scale, 4 RS/6000 workgroup servers, a waist high AS/400, a rackmount system containing an IBM M-80 and several drive racks, a dual frame SP system consisting of 10 nodes with accompanying VSS and 3494, and an air conditioning unit with air blowing in through the raised floor. It's a wonder I can hear myself think in here.
Of course, the upside is that I get to actually see the cool stuff I'm working with and it's so loud and cold in here that people generally leave me alone.
+++
Slackware uses BSD-style initialization scripts, while many other distributions use that convoluted mess of symlinks known as SysV-style. I personally think the BSD-style makes more sense and is a lot easier to mess around with, but that's me. This can result in incompatibilities when applications try to install themselves.
Each distribution has its own directory structure, so many "Red Hat compatible" applications have trouble finding the files they need.
Some distributions have their own package management system. Many use Red Hat's RPM format. Debian and Corel use Debian's
Different distros may also include different sets of libraries or versions thereof. This can result in binary incompatibilities.
The list goes on and on...
+++
+++
OK, so it's not free software, but neither is Netscape.
+++
As for the news reader, that's supposed to be greatly improved with this new version. I guess I'll find out when I get it.
+++
Also, very little older RS/6000 hardware seems to be able to run Linux (i.e. no MCA machines and only a few PCI machines). Is there much development being done to bring those machines into the fold? There are a lot of older RS/6000's out there, and they would be a perfect target for an OS like Linux, since AIX would probably be too expensive for someone with one of those. How close are we to getting more of those machines running Linux-PPC?
+++
+++
Relax, folks. We have powerful allies on this one.
+++
IBM used to be a hardware vendor. They've transformed themselves from that to a full IT services company. By shelling out the extra bucks for an RS/6000, you get not only a much more reliable and better performaing piece of hardware than that homebuilt Intel box, but you also get the company behind the box.
Plus, just because they support Linux doesn't mean they intend to get rid of their other OSes. The new IBM will sell you a support package for just about anything.
Boy, these are heady times. I used to think of IBM as the scourge of the earth, and now I actually wouldn't mind working for them.
+++
I think we need to be wary about Microsoft's idea of a service-based software industry.
The recent developments at the Microsoft camp (.net and C#) point to a future where application software is served rather than distributed as finished goods. If you want to use Office 2010, you'll have to connect to some server on the internet and run it from there.
Microsoft is trying to move away from CD-ROM based software. We already don't even own the software on their CDs. The EULA takes away all the rights you normally have when you buy something.
+++
Also you say that software should be based on quality, but you immediately follow that with a fallacious argument that you NEED the POS NT.
Give us some support for your arguments.
+++
Yes, I can see things like Office and widely distributed business apps becoming web enabled. However, the future of software is on the intranet, not the internet. I see Office 2010 as possibly being a server that sits in a company server room, but not at Microsoft headquarters.
CD-ROM software will not die as long as...
- People and businesses want to have ownership of what they buy. They want something they can hold in their hand and sell to someone else if they want. Also, most complex business apps are customized to meet individual business needs. Oracle would not be the major business player that they are if they sold the same apps package to everybody.
- Wide area network speeds do not justify running some apps from the internet as opposed to your local hard drive. Also, reliability is a huge issue. What happens if Microsoft's server goes down? Does the world go down with it?
- People who value security will not let this happen. Software vendors will have problems with people breaking in and stealing software, while users will be exposed to the dangers of having their applications and data open to anyone cunning enough to figure out how to get to it. The only true security is a broken connection.
However, I do agree that in the new software development model, the browser is more important than the OS. I think the open source movement has become misguided in that they've directed their energies toward competing against the monopoly OS, while the open source browser has yet to be fully realized.
+++
It would be smart for Microsoft to port IE to Linux and give up on protecting their OS monopoly. With the new software development model, the browser is the more relevant tool.
+++
+++
IBM can't do that unless it decides to relicense AIX to the GPL, which, considering how many different copyright notices are in the startup screens, I see happenning when hell freezes over.
Instead, IBM will have a Linux compatibility layer on top of AIX. Basically, it will still be AIX, but with the added benefit of being able to compile Linux sources.
The only real news here is that a new version of AIX has been announced. This new AIX will also run on IA-64. The goal of the Monterey project was to create a UNIX(r) for IA-64, but since IBM accomplished this with AIX, they decided to kill the project.
+++
The new version of AIX announced will be available for IA-64. This essentially renders Monterey unnecessary.
Check out IBM's fact sheet on the new AIX. This has more relevant info than the ZDNet article.
By the way, I submitted this link the other day, but it got rejected...
+++
Microsoft probably sees the browser as the most important client-side component, and they'd be right if they do. If Microsoft successfully gains control of the browser market, then it won't even matter what OS you're running anymore. They'd still have us all locked in, even if we're using Linux. They'd be embracing and extending our free software platform!
If IE gets ported to Linux, Mozilla will have to seriously improve its development efforts to be competitive. So far we've gotten away with sitting on our laurels while the competition stayed away from our turf. We can't let that continue, or all the gains that GNU/Linux has made over Windows will not even matter anymore.
+++