Re:What is the award for?
on
LinuxPPC64 Contest
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
I don't get it. Are they rewarding the project that comes up with the poorest code portability? I always thought that one of the strongest points of Open Source Software is portability across platforms (OS and CPU architectures). Does IBM (in the role of a strong platform vendor) publicly promote going in the opposite direction?
I'd expect that since most code developed on x86 can be ported to PPC, the opposite is probably true as well.
But that's the problem - most Linux PPC Linux apps are ports of x86 apps.
The object here, I think, is to promote PPC as a primary platform for Linux development, rather than a platform applications are ported to as an afterthought.
The processor is called POWER, and IBM already uses it in their high-end server products, like the ones that used to be called RS/6000.
I think what they're talking about is using them in mainframes (zSeries), which currently use a different processor than the iSeries (AS/400) or the pSeries (RS/6000). Apparently they're going to converge the hardware of their server lines as much as possible, and differentiate them mostly through the OS.
Makes sense, if they can leverage the same technologies across all their server lines, it'll help them cut their development and manufacturing costs.
I understand the fines are meant to keep a lid on how far the shock jocks go, but i think it's time we ask ourselves whether or not the government ought to have the right to decide what too far is for us. Can't the market dictate that?
The market will be dictating that now, since satellite radio isn't regulated by the FCC.
Actually, in a back-handed sort of way it's beneficial. It'll help kill public broadcast media and chase audiences over to private media that the government doesn't regulate.
It gives the Republicans a way to placate the moral morons and the free-market types both.
Although I don't think the religious right will be too happy to find out that the peasants are getting their T&A fix beyond the reach of regulation. Think this one will eventually backfire on them.
If you want to help out IBM, you'd be doing them a much bigger favor by contributing to one of their open source efforts ( and promoting Linux over Windows ) than by supporting the PC hardware division they just sold off. ThinkPads are cool and all, but they're not being sold by the the same company that's releasing this source. If you want to buy IBM hardware that actually supports IBM, it's going to have to be a Power server.
Actually, I suppose in the near-term the sale isn't officially complete, but if it isn't now, it will be soon... it's time to stop thinking of IBM as a company that sells what once were known as "IBM-compatable" systems, as odd as that sounds.
Actually, if you want to help IBM, buy a Mac! They actually make money from the chipsets they sell to Apple. One of the reasons their selling their selling the PC division is because it doesn't turn a profit.
There's more IBM parts in a Mac these days than there is in an IBM PC. How odd is that?
International language for business, yes, but French literature (and indeed German) is to be treasured and I, for one, agree that this should be acknowledged...
Well then, feel free to acknowledge and treasure it - on your own dime and with your own effort.
But I figure if Google is footing the bill for this, they're entitled to treasure and acknowledge whatever they damn well please, or not.
I'm sorry, I don't want my government creating its own ISP. It'll stifle competition (it's hard to compete against free), innovation (if there's no market to enter, why create stuff for the market), etc, etc.
I'm inclined to agree that government shouldn't be in the business of providing broadband. Nonetheless, it bothers me more that state governments are preempting the right of communities make that decision. I'd prefer to foster an environment of experimentation, so communities can find out what does and does not work for them.
At worst, communities that provide it might find out it's a miserable failure. All the same, I think they're entitled to the right to be wrong. And who knows? It might work out fine for some communities, proving people like you and me wrong. You don't know if you don't try. Anyway, I don't like the idea of state governments forcing local governments into one-size-fits-all solutions. What services a community provides should be the decision of the local governments and their citizens, not the state.
Now, if the state or the federal government started providing broadband services, I'd be screaming bloody murder. But municipal governments are somewhat more accessible and accountable to citizens under their jurisdiction, so opportunities for boondoggles and abuses are a little less prevalent. As long as government involvement is kept at that level, I don't see a problem.
I had switched from Mandrake to RedHat about a year before then end of RHL9 on the theory that every data center in the world supported RedHat, but the switch back to Mandrake was painless. This is because Mandrake was originally based on RedHat, and virtually any RPM generated for RedHat runs on Mandrake.
I switched over to Mandrake circa version 7.2 over RedHat's refusal to provide a decent KDE implementation (although, strangely enough, I now prefer using Gnome on Mandrake). Like you, I also temporarily switched back to RedHat on the same theory, but I really couldn't warm up to their BlueCurve interface, and switched back to Mandrake.
Which just goes to show you, when RedHat does something stupid, it's not necessarily all to the bad. It gives other vendors an opportunity to fill the void created by RedHat. Keeps the Linux distro ecosystem healthy.
I know most geeks are atheists who don't grock all this "religion", but we'd do better to ignore the religious types who won't have any part in the future anyway. This stuff will just move to Singapore or the like as the backwards people oppose it. I'm studying neuroscience, and I have more problems with rat-rights or monkey-rights people (who may be in a different political party).
You're telling me! Between the rat-rights people on the political Left, and the religious cranks on the political Right, I'm surprised the human race ever made it out of the caves.
I'd like to tie their tails together and throw them over a clothesline.
Don't ask me what it means, because all it means to me so far is that IBM suspects or knows something we don't yet know but we will, I'm sure, eventually find out. You don't usually have to depose your best friends, though. They tell you whatever you need to know volitionally, because they want you to win, and they'll do a declaration for you. You subpoena folks who are not eager to tell you what you wish to learn, or who wish to appear so.
No, you usually don't have to depose your best friends. Which is why this action may give some insight into the real state of relations between IBM and Intel.
Now that IBM has dumped their Intel PC business, they can afford to take off the gloves, and not have to worry about making nice in the morning.
And yet, every time I use the Mac at work, it's an exercise in frustration. Part of it is the unfamiliarity with the way to do things on a Mac (bass-ackwards, it seems, is the rule of the day), but part of it is sheer torture (font handling, for instance). And every time I use it, I find myself trying to use the one-button mouse as though it were a two-button mouse.
That's the whole problem. To a neophyte computer user, a one-button mouse may well be easier to manage than a two (or more) button mouse. Problem is, how many neophyte computer users are left? Most people have some computer experience, and for better or worse, it's usually on a Windows machine with a two-button mouse. Like it or not, Windows is the lingua franca of personal computers. Telling users that a one-button mouse is simpler is like telling me Esperanto is easier than English. That may well be true, in a technical sense, but since I already speak English, and all my friends speak English, and everyone who posts on Slashdot speaks English, having to learn to speak Esperanto wouldn't make my life any simpler.
Now, don't get me wrong, I love my (several) Mac notebooks, but the fact is that through my experience with Windows and X-based Unix user interfaces I'm accustomed to interacting with the user interface in a certain way out of habit, and when I go for the non-existent right-mouse button and it isn't there, it's a bit of a jarring experience. I understand that Apple doesn't want developers to become reliant on the second mouse button, and I'm fine with that. I also recognize that you can get a mouse with as many buttons as you like, which is also fine.
My problem is with their notebooks, which, while you can get an external mouse for them, that doesn't really solve the problem. Unfortunately, a number of situations you're going to use a notebook in (such as on a train, waiting in an airport, or lying on your couch with your feet in the air) make using an external mouse a royal pain in the ass. Why don't they just make the trackpad/mouse assembly user replacable so third parties can accomodate the needs of people who want a multi-button mouse on a notebook?
They aren't moving the Z-Series (mainframes) -- or at least there has been no announcement.
I don't think they're going to be moving the Z-series to Power5, but I've been hearing for a couple of years that the plan was to eventually move them over to the Power architecture with the Power6.
http://msn-cnet.com.com/2100-1001-919579.html
Obviously it makes sense for them to converge their server lines to the greatest extent they can. But I have no idea how true this is or how much progress they've made.
Once there's a certified Linux C4EB, I'm switching.
The last time I checked, they'd taken the last version of Linux C4EB off of the web site, and left a message that it would be available again after being tweaked based on the feedback they'd received.
That was a few months ago, and it still hadn't made a re-appearance as of about a week ago.
I think this is turning out to be more of a challenge than they anticipated. But assuming they're dedicated to working through all the issues, it could be beneficial to desktop Linux in general.
I can honestly say that a lot would have to be done with their own internal applications to bring them to Linux. Domino client won't run. Neither is a Sametime client available. Both were in heavy use in IBM Global Services, at least.
I don't understand the unwillingness to port these two desktop pieces (both being on Linux would be handy where I am now), but between that and the web apps, they have a lot of work ahead if they want to fulfill a Linux desktop.
When the original story was posted about a year ago I got into a long discussion with another IBMer about why this just wasn't gonna fly. Not only are there not suitable versions of all of IBM's internal applications available, if you work in Global Services at a customer site, chances are pretty good that the customer is going to be using application that you can't easily replace, either.
Anyway, things have changed a little since the original initiative. For one, IBM no longer owns a desktop PC company, and has little incentive for pushing Intel-based Linux boxes on the desktop anymore.
And considering that these days, a Macintosh has more IBM parts in it than most so-called "IBM compatibles", you can't help but wonder if that might be The Next Big Thing they choose to push. It's certainly a friendlier desktop, it's got MS Office (and IBM has a licensing arrangement for the Mac version as well as Windows) and a Notes client available for it, and if worse comes to worse, you can run your Windows software on Virtual PC (which they also have a licensing arrangement for). Considering IBM has nothing to gain by pushing Intel desktops anymore, you can only wonder what might be in the works behind the scenes.
What are you talking about? Gates has always been a huge charity donor.
I always find it humorous when rich people are lauded for giving away their money, and damned for earning it in the first place.
In the process of earning his money, Gates' licensing DOS and it's descendants to all comers created a standard hardware platform for personal computers, thereby forcing hardware vendors to compete on price and innovation. This in turn spurred rapid technical innovation and price reductions, making computers affordable enough that nearly everyone could own one. This in turn facilitated the growth of ancillary hardware, software, and tech support industries, providing thousands, if not millions, of people a living. The propagation of personal computers in turn allowed for the explosive growth of the internet, which in turn created a demand for broadband service, thereby triggering a revolution in the communications industry as well.
And you could go on all day listing the scientific advancements and economic opportunities made possible by the availability of cheap computing power.
Bill Gates may have given $10 million for AIDS awareness in Africa, but for all that, how much of an impact has that made on AIDS? Damn little, as far as I can see.
Ironically, while the wealthy are damned for earning their money and lauded for giving it away, Gates, like most of the filthy rich capitalists, did more for the "Good of Society" and the advancement of humanity in the process of earning his money than he will ever conceivably be able to do by giving it away.
IBM is bringing out new Power systems targeted at Linux.
Might additional industry accolades be gained if this platform could also offer Solaris for the Power architecture?
This sort of tit-for-tat negotiation is better conducted behind closed doors. I imagine that Solaris on Power, plus more participation and control in Java, would make IBM very open to supporting Solaris wherever Sun wanted.
And it would be better still if Sun started building systems based on Power themselves. I'm sure that would make IBM very friendly indeed.
I use my powerbook every day too, and about half the time I have only the one button touchpad. One advantage of the touchpad is the proximity of the keyboard, so it doesn't seem like quite as big a hassle to have to use the command key.
Yeah, I do the same thing with my iBook. Still, I'd rather have a 3-button mouse on it.
It'd be nice if Apple would design their notebooks so the mouse/touch-pad assembly were user removable, allowing 3rd parties to market replacements. I realize I could get an external mouse for it, but toting that around would be more aggravation than it's worth.
It's a shame he hosted his project on Windows, I would have like to have seen it on OS X or Linux.
Where do you see that he hosted it on Windows? He hosted it on a Kuro Box, which is a Linux-based PPC device. The only role Windows plays is running the setup program to load the Kuro system image.
The Kuro Box is a pretty neat toy in it's own right. If you want to play around with Linux development on a PPC platform on the cheap, it's certainly the way to go.
So sub-$500 or not, what would I really gain by switching to OSX as opposed to GNU/Linux (I'm a-liking Debian these days)? Speaking a member of the disgruntled-but-somehow-sticking-with-it Windoze community, that is.
Well, I originally bought a cheap (refurbished) iBook just for the purpose of being able to play around with Linux PPC.
After I played around with OS X for a while, I liked it so well I never bothered installing Linux.
What you get is pretty much a Unix-like system (same thing as Linux, really), and additionally, you get a coherent and friendly desktop, as well as the It Just Works factor.
Actually, that could be viewed as a bit of a downside from a geek perspective. One of the challenges of Linux is figuring out how to get all of your stuff to work, so you wind up learning a lot. In contrast, I've never really learned a lot about what goes on under the hood of OS X, because I've never needed to.
The Power4 versions required a serial connection, but I think the new Power5 only needs ethernet. (I could be wrong: I haven't studied the manuals in detail, yet.)
You can use either ethernet (ASMI) or serial (HMC).
Fun fact I found out the hard way - you can't attach Power5 servers to the same HMC as Power4 servers. You need to get a seperate HMC for the Power5's. I couldn't get a clear answer on why this is, something to do with a difference in their communication protocols.
As for the manuals, you'll read them in vain, because the information you're looking for isn't in there. I couldn't even find it in the online manuals. I ended up calling support, who didn't have the information either, but were able to hook me up with the backline support people who were at least able to give me enough information to get me started.
Another fun fact I learned the hard way: if you try to set one up by attaching a console to the serial port, be sure you set the termninal to 19200 baud. Most terminals default to 9600, which is fine for most servers, but will only get you garbage on a Power5.
Despite the fact that they look pretty much the same as the Power4's, the Power5's are an entirely different breed of cat. Be sure to allow yourself plenty of time for trial and error experimentation when you go to set one up. Believe me, you'll need it. You're going to be in for a few surprises, and not all of them pleasant.
What about some recent NT version? Since the Xbox 2 is apparently heavily modified windows on PPC, there's a chance (however slight) MS could release Windows for PPC again.
If PowerPC gains as much popularity as IBM hopes (and not without some justification, either), you can be sure Microsoft will be there with Windows. Especially since Microsoft wants to play in the embedded space, where PPC is big and getting bigger.
And you never know what IBM might be up to behind the scenes, now that they've ditched their PC division.
Microsoft isn't dumb. You can be sure that they're going to hedge their bets, just in case.
Just read all the complaints on "MacOS 10.x.y update ate my modem (or whatever"). Imagine the new situation. MacOS 10.x.y arrives. You clone your current main partiotion to a new one and do the upgrade there. You can safely test everything... and either make the new one your main work partition or happily return to 10.x.(y-1) and wait for 10.x.(y+1).
I'm not sure this would buy you much in that regard. You can accomplish the same thing with a mirrored disk. Just split your mirror, install your upgrade, and if your upgrade goes south just boot from your split mirror.
Not sure if OS X supports disk mirroring, but that's how I do it on Suns and HP's.
We're doing that with a new p520 at my shop. It's setup as a NIM server (the AIX equivalent of JumpStart for you Solaris folks). If I need to test a new version of Samba or some such prior to a production implementation, I just boot another partition on this baby, do my build and my testing, and when I'm done the partition is just shutdown and goes away.
I'm all for Linux but I'm interested in knowing what sort of things other companies are finding that are preventing them from switching.
What makes this question such a stinker is that it usually isn't the big, common things that are the show stoppers, it's myriad little things.
In my case, I can think of a couple off the top of my head. For one, the availability of a Nortel VPN client. Now, I know there's actually a Nortel client available, but my shop is already paying a flat fee for the Windows client. If they want the Linux client as well, they have to pay extra. Therefore, their position is that Linux is unsupported. Then there's the fact that there are a number of Access databases that we use, and nobody's in a big hurry to migrate them to something else. And of course, there's all the specialized, obscure little applications that create data in various proprietary formats, with no Linux version available from the vendor, and not of sufficiently large an audience that anyone in the open source community is going to be bothered to write an equivalent.
I'd say that the big things, office suites, etc., Linux already has. But it's the little, obscure, PITA applications that have evolved within the Windows ecosystem throughout the years that can't be easily replaced.
My shop is running a massive PeopleSoft implementation. Now what? Since Oracle wants to discontinue the line I wonder how much longer they'll be offering support for it. I also have to wonder what our alternatives are going to be to replace it.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't get it. Are they rewarding the project that comes up with the poorest code portability? I always thought that one of the strongest points of Open Source Software is portability across platforms (OS and CPU architectures). Does IBM (in the role of a strong platform vendor) publicly promote going in the opposite direction?
I'd expect that since most code developed on x86 can be ported to PPC, the opposite is probably true as well.
But that's the problem - most Linux PPC Linux apps are ports of x86 apps.
The object here, I think, is to promote PPC as a primary platform for Linux development, rather than a platform applications are ported to as an afterthought.
It was patented in 1999 (the keyboard idea).
Actually, a crank-powered audio player was patented a long time before that. See here.
The processor is called POWER, and IBM already uses it in their high-end server products, like the ones that used to be called RS/6000.
I think what they're talking about is using them in mainframes (zSeries), which currently use a different processor than the iSeries (AS/400) or the pSeries (RS/6000). Apparently they're going to converge the hardware of their server lines as much as possible, and differentiate them mostly through the OS.
Makes sense, if they can leverage the same technologies across all their server lines, it'll help them cut their development and manufacturing costs.
I understand the fines are meant to keep a lid on how far the shock jocks go, but i think it's time we ask ourselves whether or not the government ought to have the right to decide what too far is for us. Can't the market dictate that?
;-)
The market will be dictating that now, since satellite radio isn't regulated by the FCC.
Actually, in a back-handed sort of way it's beneficial. It'll help kill public broadcast media and chase audiences over to private media that the government doesn't regulate.
It gives the Republicans a way to placate the moral morons and the free-market types both.
Although I don't think the religious right will be too happy to find out that the peasants are getting their T&A fix beyond the reach of regulation. Think this one will eventually backfire on them.
Markets are Wonderful Things.
If you want to help out IBM, you'd be doing them a much bigger favor by contributing to one of their open source efforts ( and promoting Linux over Windows ) than by supporting the PC hardware division they just sold off. ThinkPads are cool and all, but they're not being sold by the the same company that's releasing this source. If you want to buy IBM hardware that actually supports IBM, it's going to have to be a Power server.
Actually, I suppose in the near-term the sale isn't officially complete, but if it isn't now, it will be soon... it's time to stop thinking of IBM as a company that sells what once were known as "IBM-compatable" systems, as odd as that sounds.
Actually, if you want to help IBM, buy a Mac! They actually make money from the chipsets they sell to Apple. One of the reasons their selling their selling the PC division is because it doesn't turn a profit.
There's more IBM parts in a Mac these days than there is in an IBM PC. How odd is that?
International language for business, yes, but French literature (and indeed German) is to be treasured and I, for one, agree that this should be acknowledged...
Well then, feel free to acknowledge and treasure it - on your own dime and with your own effort.
But I figure if Google is footing the bill for this, they're entitled to treasure and acknowledge whatever they damn well please, or not.
I'm sorry, I don't want my government creating its own ISP. It'll stifle competition (it's hard to compete against free), innovation (if there's no market to enter, why create stuff for the market), etc, etc.
I'm inclined to agree that government shouldn't be in the business of providing broadband. Nonetheless, it bothers me more that state governments are preempting the right of communities make that decision. I'd prefer to foster an environment of experimentation, so communities can find out what does and does not work for them.
At worst, communities that provide it might find out it's a miserable failure. All the same, I think they're entitled to the right to be wrong. And who knows? It might work out fine for some communities, proving people like you and me wrong. You don't know if you don't try. Anyway, I don't like the idea of state governments forcing local governments into one-size-fits-all solutions. What services a community provides should be the decision of the local governments and their citizens, not the state.
Now, if the state or the federal government started providing broadband services, I'd be screaming bloody murder. But municipal governments are somewhat more accessible and accountable to citizens under their jurisdiction, so opportunities for boondoggles and abuses are a little less prevalent. As long as government involvement is kept at that level, I don't see a problem.
I had switched from Mandrake to RedHat about a year before then end of RHL9 on the theory that every data center in the world supported RedHat, but the switch back to Mandrake was painless. This is because Mandrake was originally based on RedHat, and virtually any RPM generated for RedHat runs on Mandrake.
I switched over to Mandrake circa version 7.2 over RedHat's refusal to provide a decent KDE implementation (although, strangely enough, I now prefer using Gnome on Mandrake). Like you, I also temporarily switched back to RedHat on the same theory, but I really couldn't warm up to their BlueCurve interface, and switched back to Mandrake.
Which just goes to show you, when RedHat does something stupid, it's not necessarily all to the bad. It gives other vendors an opportunity to fill the void created by RedHat. Keeps the Linux distro ecosystem healthy.
I know most geeks are atheists who don't grock all this "religion", but we'd do better to ignore the religious types who won't have any part in the future anyway. This stuff will just move to Singapore or the like as the backwards people oppose it. I'm studying neuroscience, and I have more problems with rat-rights or monkey-rights people (who may be in a different political party).
You're telling me! Between the rat-rights people on the political Left, and the religious cranks on the political Right, I'm surprised the human race ever made it out of the caves.
I'd like to tie their tails together and throw them over a clothesline.
Don't ask me what it means, because all it means to me so far is that IBM suspects or knows something we don't yet know but we will, I'm sure, eventually find out. You don't usually have to depose your best friends, though. They tell you whatever you need to know volitionally, because they want you to win, and they'll do a declaration for you. You subpoena folks who are not eager to tell you what you wish to learn, or who wish to appear so.
No, you usually don't have to depose your best friends. Which is why this action may give some insight into the real state of relations between IBM and Intel.
Now that IBM has dumped their Intel PC business, they can afford to take off the gloves, and not have to worry about making nice in the morning.
And yet, every time I use the Mac at work, it's an exercise in frustration. Part of it is the unfamiliarity with the way to do things on a Mac (bass-ackwards, it seems, is the rule of the day), but part of it is sheer torture (font handling, for instance). And every time I use it, I find myself trying to use the one-button mouse as though it were a two-button mouse.
That's the whole problem. To a neophyte computer user, a one-button mouse may well be easier to manage than a two (or more) button mouse. Problem is, how many neophyte computer users are left? Most people have some computer experience, and for better or worse, it's usually on a Windows machine with a two-button mouse. Like it or not, Windows is the lingua franca of personal computers. Telling users that a one-button mouse is simpler is like telling me Esperanto is easier than English. That may well be true, in a technical sense, but since I already speak English, and all my friends speak English, and everyone who posts on Slashdot speaks English, having to learn to speak Esperanto wouldn't make my life any simpler.
Now, don't get me wrong, I love my (several) Mac notebooks, but the fact is that through my experience with Windows and X-based Unix user interfaces I'm accustomed to interacting with the user interface in a certain way out of habit, and when I go for the non-existent right-mouse button and it isn't there, it's a bit of a jarring experience. I understand that Apple doesn't want developers to become reliant on the second mouse button, and I'm fine with that. I also recognize that you can get a mouse with as many buttons as you like, which is also fine.
My problem is with their notebooks, which, while you can get an external mouse for them, that doesn't really solve the problem. Unfortunately, a number of situations you're going to use a notebook in (such as on a train, waiting in an airport, or lying on your couch with your feet in the air) make using an external mouse a royal pain in the ass. Why don't they just make the trackpad/mouse assembly user replacable so third parties can accomodate the needs of people who want a multi-button mouse on a notebook?
They aren't moving the Z-Series (mainframes) -- or at least there has been no announcement.
I don't think they're going to be moving the Z-series to Power5, but I've been hearing for a couple of years that the plan was to eventually move them over to the Power architecture with the Power6.
http://msn-cnet.com.com/2100-1001-919579.html
Obviously it makes sense for them to converge their server lines to the greatest extent they can. But I have no idea how true this is or how much progress they've made.
Once there's a certified Linux C4EB, I'm switching.
The last time I checked, they'd taken the last version of Linux C4EB off of the web site, and left a message that it would be available again after being tweaked based on the feedback they'd received.
That was a few months ago, and it still hadn't made a re-appearance as of about a week ago.
I think this is turning out to be more of a challenge than they anticipated. But assuming they're dedicated to working through all the issues, it could be beneficial to desktop Linux in general.
I can honestly say that a lot would have to be done with their own internal applications to bring them to Linux. Domino client won't run. Neither is a Sametime client available. Both were in heavy use in IBM Global Services, at least.
I don't understand the unwillingness to port these two desktop pieces (both being on Linux would be handy where I am now), but between that and the web apps, they have a lot of work ahead if they want to fulfill a Linux desktop.
When the original story was posted about a year ago I got into a long discussion with another IBMer about why this just wasn't gonna fly. Not only are there not suitable versions of all of IBM's internal applications available, if you work in Global Services at a customer site, chances are pretty good that the customer is going to be using application that you can't easily replace, either.
Anyway, things have changed a little since the original initiative. For one, IBM no longer owns a desktop PC company, and has little incentive for pushing Intel-based Linux boxes on the desktop anymore.
And considering that these days, a Macintosh has more IBM parts in it than most so-called "IBM compatibles", you can't help but wonder if that might be The Next Big Thing they choose to push. It's certainly a friendlier desktop, it's got MS Office (and IBM has a licensing arrangement for the Mac version as well as Windows) and a Notes client available for it, and if worse comes to worse, you can run your Windows software on Virtual PC (which they also have a licensing arrangement for). Considering IBM has nothing to gain by pushing Intel desktops anymore, you can only wonder what might be in the works behind the scenes.
What are you talking about? Gates has always been a huge charity donor.
I always find it humorous when rich people are lauded for giving away their money, and damned for earning it in the first place.
In the process of earning his money, Gates' licensing DOS and it's descendants to all comers created a standard hardware platform for personal computers, thereby forcing hardware vendors to compete on price and innovation. This in turn spurred rapid technical innovation and price reductions, making computers affordable enough that nearly everyone could own one. This in turn facilitated the growth of ancillary hardware, software, and tech support industries, providing thousands, if not millions, of people a living. The propagation of personal computers in turn allowed for the explosive growth of the internet, which in turn created a demand for broadband service, thereby triggering a revolution in the communications industry as well.
And you could go on all day listing the scientific advancements and economic opportunities made possible by the availability of cheap computing power.
Bill Gates may have given $10 million for AIDS awareness in Africa, but for all that, how much of an impact has that made on AIDS? Damn little, as far as I can see.
Ironically, while the wealthy are damned for earning their money and lauded for giving it away, Gates, like most of the filthy rich capitalists, did more for the "Good of Society" and the advancement of humanity in the process of earning his money than he will ever conceivably be able to do by giving it away.
IBM is bringing out new Power systems targeted at Linux.
Might additional industry accolades be gained if this platform could also offer Solaris for the Power architecture?
This sort of tit-for-tat negotiation is better conducted behind closed doors. I imagine that Solaris on Power, plus more participation and control in Java, would make IBM very open to supporting Solaris wherever Sun wanted.
And it would be better still if Sun started building systems based on Power themselves. I'm sure that would make IBM very friendly indeed.
I use my powerbook every day too, and about half the time I have only the one button touchpad. One advantage of the touchpad is the proximity of the keyboard, so it doesn't seem like quite as big a hassle to have to use the command key.
Yeah, I do the same thing with my iBook. Still, I'd rather have a 3-button mouse on it.
It'd be nice if Apple would design their notebooks so the mouse/touch-pad assembly were user removable, allowing 3rd parties to market replacements. I realize I could get an external mouse for it, but toting that around would be more aggravation than it's worth.
Oh, well. Maybe someday.
It's a shame he hosted his project on Windows, I would have like to have seen it on OS X or Linux.
Where do you see that he hosted it on Windows? He hosted it on a Kuro Box, which is a Linux-based PPC device. The only role Windows plays is running the setup program to load the Kuro system image.
Actually, you can even get around that. Someone on the Kuro forum put together instructions for loading the system image from a Mac.
The Kuro Box is a pretty neat toy in it's own right. If you want to play around with Linux development on a PPC platform on the cheap, it's certainly the way to go.
So sub-$500 or not, what would I really gain by switching to OSX as opposed to GNU/Linux (I'm a-liking Debian these days)? Speaking a member of the disgruntled-but-somehow-sticking-with-it Windoze community, that is.
Well, I originally bought a cheap (refurbished) iBook just for the purpose of being able to play around with Linux PPC.
After I played around with OS X for a while, I liked it so well I never bothered installing Linux.
What you get is pretty much a Unix-like system (same thing as Linux, really), and additionally, you get a coherent and friendly desktop, as well as the It Just Works factor.
Actually, that could be viewed as a bit of a downside from a geek perspective. One of the challenges of Linux is figuring out how to get all of your stuff to work, so you wind up learning a lot. In contrast, I've never really learned a lot about what goes on under the hood of OS X, because I've never needed to.
Maybe I'm just getting old and lazy.
The Power4 versions required a serial connection, but I think the new Power5 only needs ethernet. (I could be wrong: I haven't studied the manuals in detail, yet.)
You can use either ethernet (ASMI) or serial (HMC).
Fun fact I found out the hard way - you can't attach Power5 servers to the same HMC as Power4 servers. You need to get a seperate HMC for the Power5's. I couldn't get a clear answer on why this is, something to do with a difference in their communication protocols.
As for the manuals, you'll read them in vain, because the information you're looking for isn't in there. I couldn't even find it in the online manuals. I ended up calling support, who didn't have the information either, but were able to hook me up with the backline support people who were at least able to give me enough information to get me started.
Another fun fact I learned the hard way: if you try to set one up by attaching a console to the serial port, be sure you set the termninal to 19200 baud. Most terminals default to 9600, which is fine for most servers, but will only get you garbage on a Power5.
Despite the fact that they look pretty much the same as the Power4's, the Power5's are an entirely different breed of cat. Be sure to allow yourself plenty of time for trial and error experimentation when you go to set one up. Believe me, you'll need it. You're going to be in for a few surprises, and not all of them pleasant.
What about some recent NT version? Since the Xbox 2 is apparently heavily modified windows on PPC, there's a chance (however slight) MS could release Windows for PPC again.
If PowerPC gains as much popularity as IBM hopes (and not without some justification, either), you can be sure Microsoft will be there with Windows. Especially since Microsoft wants to play in the embedded space, where PPC is big and getting bigger.
And you never know what IBM might be up to behind the scenes, now that they've ditched their PC division.
Microsoft isn't dumb. You can be sure that they're going to hedge their bets, just in case.
Just read all the complaints on "MacOS 10.x.y update ate my modem (or whatever"). Imagine the new situation. MacOS 10.x.y arrives. You clone your current main partiotion to a new one and do the upgrade there. You can safely test everything... and either make the new one your main work partition or happily return to 10.x.(y-1) and wait for 10.x.(y+1).
I'm not sure this would buy you much in that regard. You can accomplish the same thing with a mirrored disk. Just split your mirror, install your upgrade, and if your upgrade goes south just boot from your split mirror.
Not sure if OS X supports disk mirroring, but that's how I do it on Suns and HP's.
We're doing that with a new p520 at my shop. It's setup as a NIM server (the AIX equivalent of JumpStart for you Solaris folks). If I need to test a new version of Samba or some such prior to a production implementation, I just boot another partition on this baby, do my build and my testing, and when I'm done the partition is just shutdown and goes away.
Comes in real handy.
I'm all for Linux but I'm interested in knowing what sort of things other companies are finding that are preventing them from switching.
What makes this question such a stinker is that it usually isn't the big, common things that are the show stoppers, it's myriad little things.
In my case, I can think of a couple off the top of my head. For one, the availability of a Nortel VPN client. Now, I know there's actually a Nortel client available, but my shop is already paying a flat fee for the Windows client. If they want the Linux client as well, they have to pay extra. Therefore, their position is that Linux is unsupported. Then there's the fact that there are a number of Access databases that we use, and nobody's in a big hurry to migrate them to something else. And of course, there's all the specialized, obscure little applications that create data in various proprietary formats, with no Linux version available from the vendor, and not of sufficiently large an audience that anyone in the open source community is going to be bothered to write an equivalent.
I'd say that the big things, office suites, etc., Linux already has. But it's the little, obscure, PITA applications that have evolved within the Windows ecosystem throughout the years that can't be easily replaced.
My shop is running a massive PeopleSoft implementation. Now what? Since Oracle wants to discontinue the line I wonder how much longer they'll be offering support for it. I also have to wonder what our alternatives are going to be to replace it.
This is going to suck big time.