Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Linux Business IBM Software Linux

IBM Calls Linux "Logical Successor" To AIX 316

Posted by timothy from the in-line-with-recent-events dept.
pknoll writes "Though it probably won't happen soon, IBM is talking about Linux eventually replacing AIX. The article at Globe Technology states there are IBM folks working on 'chips for 2007' systems, and the viewpoint projected is described as 'multidecade,' but it's an interesting view into the future of IBM and Linux."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

IBM Calls Linux "Logical Successor" To AIX More

IBM Calls Linux "Logical Successor" To AIX

Comments Filter:

  • Cheaper is better (Score:3, Interesting)

    by FatSean ( 18753 ) on Thursday January 30, 2003 @05:43PM (#5191523) Homepage Journal
    If Linux support tools evolve to the level of SMIT and other such AIX things, then I can see this happening.

    • Re:Cheaper is better (Score:3, Interesting)

      by gordie ( 139287 )
      Agreed, it's my hope that like IBM's porting of their journaled file system to Linux, that they will someday do a port of SMIT to Linux. Of all the various tools supplied with all the various Unix "flavors", I've used over the years, SMIT is by far IMHO the best!

      • Re:Cheaper is better (Score:4, Interesting)

        by RFC959 ( 121594 ) on Thursday January 30, 2003 @09:24PM (#5193074) Journal
        Agreed, SMIT is pretty good, but in some ways it's too good for the admins' good. What do I mean by that? I mean that because you can do almost anything through SMIT, IBM has very little incentive to make commands usable on their own. Almost every even slightly complicated AIX command ends up needing a syntax like 'command -x -T -f -q0 -R 4096 -n foo -a bar=baz'. As a result, it's hard to do much except through SMIT, because you can't remember the umpty-zillion weird options the command needs. (It doesn't help that AIX manpages tend to be about ten feet long and put the options near the end. As a sysadmin, I don't have a problem with the command line, and I'm used to options! But AIX's are just ridiculous.)

        I don't think we will ever really see SMIT for Linux like SMIT for AIX, though. IBM can make SMIT for AIX because they can control the interface for every part of AIX; they can force it to pass AIX Central Change Control or whatever it's called. They can't do that with Linux...unless it's strictly IBM Linux, and then it's not going to resemble other flavors, so what does it really buy you?

  • Unix (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Cookeisparanoid ( 178680 )
    Considering IBM were one of the companies who helped splinter Unix in the first place is it a good idea to pin the future of linux on them.
    Also dont they have a mjority stakholding in SuSE practically the only distrobution you cant download iso for?

    • Re:Unix (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Yes, but like Sun they 'splintered' it so it ran more effectively on their hardware. And like Sun, IBM is mainly in the hardware business. Operating systems are just a sideline really.

    • The True Value of Open Source (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Gerry Gleason ( 609985 ) <gerry@@@geraldgleason...com> on Thursday January 30, 2003 @06:11PM (#5191780)
      IBM was not about to help out its competitors by endorsing one of their UNIX flavors, but Linux is free for anyone to use, and GPL guarantees that it stays that way.

      At this point, this is probably just a statement about likely future direction, and as such it doesn't mean much, but in the long run I would expect that many of the AIX engineering and support people can be retargeted for Linux. AIX has a lot of support for things their customers really need, and it will take a while to move the important bits of this over to Linux. Probably, they will not OS all of this, but it may become available for purchase for other platforms. All of this is good for the industry.

    • Re:Unix (Score:3, Informative)

      by jmb-d ( 322230 )
      Also dont they have a mjority stakholding in SuSE practically the only distrobution you cant download iso for?

      Um, you can't download this [linuxiso.org]?
      • Download:
        i386 Release: 2002-10-15
        SuSE - SuSE live-eval 8.1 645MB

        I assume the parent to your comment meant download in a useable free form.

  • IBM has a sneaky approach... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by swordboy ( 472941 ) on Thursday January 30, 2003 @05:49PM (#5191574) Journal
    They have their own tools but all of a sudden, Linux comes along. Because most middle-management add it to their dictionary of buzzword compliance, IBM simply replaces their existing tools with Linux. Their prices don't change and, all-of-a-sudden, IBM becomes synonymous with buzzword compliancy. And they get to milk developers who work for free!

  • That is a crying shame (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 30, 2003 @05:49PM (#5191578)
    'cause AIX is actually pretty damn good. It may not have the rampant 'coolness' of Linux with all its little gadgets and what not, but it's a rock solid stable system with many advanced 'enterprise level' features.

    In most of the ways that matter, AIX is well ahead of Linux. Seriously, Linux has some catching up to do if it to replace AIX.
    • This post says nothing. Perhaps you could list what features AIX has that Linux does not? That would be an interesting post.

      I use AIX all the time. To me it is just another UNIX system.

      • Re:That is a crying shame (Score:5, Informative)

        by bored ( 40072 ) on Thursday January 30, 2003 @07:37PM (#5192378)
        Support for large major/minor configurations. For example this translates to being able to handle more than 256 devices on a SAN. Hot Plug PCI & Io drawers that work. Capacity on demand across virtual partitions allows processor/RAM to appear disappear from a virtual partition. A journaled file system that supports dynamic expansion across LV's. Mixed 32-bit and 64-bit applications running on the same hardware under either a 32-bit or 64-bit kernel. A built in kernel debugger that doesn't suck.

        This just off the top of my head. Most of these features like the the JFS/LVM stuff has been there for years.

    • You miss the point of this (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Idou ( 572394 ) on Thursday January 30, 2003 @06:57PM (#5192108) Journal
      It is not that the Linux you know now is going to replace AIX. The point is that IBM will invest to bring Linux up to the level of AIX over the years, and when Linux is as good as AIX at what AIX is good at, you will get a product like AIX but with the "coolness" of Linux.

      IBM is merely reinforcing their already rock solid commitment.
    • Yeah, "little gadgets" like /usr/bin/ldd. (Yes, there are open-source versions, but it's still a nuisance.) As far as "rock solid"...while the OS seems stable enough (then again, so's just about every modern Unix) have you ever rebooted a p690 LPAR? About one time in 10, the Hardware Management Console stops the system during boot, and unless you can get to the HMC, you're fucked. Let us not speak of the idiocy of requiring Ye Magick Proprietary Console in the first place... And ask me about the time smitty dumped core on me every time I ran it. I've had enough with "enterprise" crap. To me, "enterprise" is synonymous with "overpriced, overdesigned, and requiring full-time care and feeding." Oh well...I'm just bitter because my office had a nice Sun environment, and the VP of technology decided to repay Sun for their service by moving everything to AIX, for no reason I can tell other than that he's got his tongue firmly lodged in IBM's ass...

  • I think the only things holding back Linux from replacing AIX are:

    • buy-in from the AIX customer base -- AIX users tend to be fairly loyal (and large, such as telcos)
    • advanced AIX tools and such ported to Linux (SMIT was mentioned in a previous post)
    • documentation for Linux comparable to that available for AIX

    I installed Linux on an IBM eServe recently and it took to it really well, although I did have to use the "vanilla" install option of the Debian netinst to get it to use the ServeRAID card.

    • Re:Buy-in from customer base needed... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Atzanteol ( 99067 ) on Thursday January 30, 2003 @06:02PM (#5191687) Homepage
      Performance in the data center isn't there yet for Linux. Almost nobody with a serious databasee will run it on Linux. Even though DB2 and Oracle run on Linux, it's just not as fast yet. 2.6 should hopefully change this, as the kernel developers have been taking suggestions in this area to heart.
      • Performance in the data center isn't there yet for Linux. Almost nobody with a serious databasee will run it on Linux. Even though DB2 and Oracle run on Linux, it's just not as fast yet. 2.6 should hopefully change this, as the kernel developers have been taking suggestions in this area to heart.

        I do have to agree with you -- I have no experience with that personally (all of my large databases are filesystem based, and are not "data centre large", as my largest is about 100 meg), but I have heard that complaint before.

        Is there a good web page or document that addresses the specific concerns wrt. that level of performance (proposed changes to the scheduler, vm, etc.)?

      • Linux still lacks the scalability that AIX, Solaris, HP-UX, and UNICOS/mk have. This is improving, especially thanks to IBM, but it is still a weak point for both Windows and Linux. This is one thing that is necessary for Linux to really compete with AIX, etc. on the high-end servers. And it is getting there.

        BTW, this is one aspect of its datacenter problems-- if I want to do engineering, I can put together a beowulf cluster, but a PVM-based RBDMS sounds scary to me if I want to maintain my data integrity.
      • I have to concur, but I realize that this limitation will be short lived. I am a major Linux freak, and tried to push it as a Unix replacement to a company that I consult for. After many trials with their IT manager, it became appearent that Linux performed a little worse then their 3 year old AIX solution when managing their massive database. (As a side note, they still decided on using Linux to replace a few servers, mail and web of course, just not this one or their NT Exchange box)

        However, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that the support of powerhouses like Sun and IBM, coupled with the incredible power of the open source community, will have Linux up to par with major the popular Unices in this respect rather rapidly. I give Linux maybe 1 year to reach that same level of performance. If you have the money to spend on Redhat or IBM (or a combination of the two) custom jobs now, you can actually have this power in a month.

    • AIX has become a good workhorse over the years, although it still gives some problems when porting. The users that you mention have their apps working nicely now on AIX will not want to change until they see equal performance and reliability on Linux. Easy system management is always useful, but already we have tools supporting Linux like Webmin. Ok, it isn't SMIT, but it is fast and extensible.

      The thing is, AIX is a traditional closed source system. It gets better, but Linux evolves faster. There are simply more heads available for Linux than there are for AIX. IBM only really sees AIX as a platform to rest their servers on. With Linux, the advantage is all they have to care about is ensuring it works with their hardware, so they can save a lot of money.

      Their real interest now is consultancy, and there are a lot more potential Linux systems out there than AIX.

  • But what of the AIX customers? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by uncleFester ( 29998 ) on Thursday January 30, 2003 @05:53PM (#5191614) Homepage Journal
    I bet a large number of AIX admins on various POWER boxen, after having shelled out untold $COINAGE on their systems are simply thrilled by this... after they picked themselves up off the floor laughing.

    IBM is doing a decent contribution to Linux with various contributions such as JFS and its people involved with various SMP, VM & filesystem projects. But to state something like this right now.. well, it sure would make me question any future investment in AIX-related systems and software, wouldn't it? After all, a server-room Unix system isn't your typical purchase of 'buy for 3 years useful life...' (at least not when I spec'ed boxen..)
    • I expect IBM to take care of these people. If this is for real, they will take care of them with a release of Linux, but it won't come until the existing AIX base is comfortable with it. IBM has always bet their business on catering to the needs of serious customers with real work to do, and I don't expect this to change.

      What is really good about this is that IBM is now competing on the merits with hardware performance and service. This is why we all pushed for "Open Systems" even before Linux was even a dream. They always had good support and service, so there is no reason they won't compete successfully on the merits. No "vendor motel" marketing techniques anymore to lock-in customers.

    • IBM E.O.L.'s a critical version of AIX,

      we buy the source! ;)

      (we did it with AIX 3.2.5, if they EOL we'll do it again).

  • Well on the other hand, (Score:5, Insightful)

    by frodo from middle ea ( 602941 ) on Thursday January 30, 2003 @05:59PM (#5191669) Homepage
    Two.Three Years ago ....
    10 years ago... people would ask ... Linux whats that ?
    5 years ago .... Oh that hippie thing the nerds use ?
    2-3 years ago ... I know its good, but does it do windows ? or how can i install it on windows (actually this can be done :-) )?

    NOW :- We want to use linux, to reduce our IT budget cost . Also we are fed up with the security issues with M$ products and the licnesing costs are killing us. Plus we have heard that linux is an excellent replacement for legacy *inxs.

    Although IBM may not have contributed directly to kernel code, they are doing a lot to improve LINUX's image in the mindset of MANAGERS of IT Project,

    As they say, Win the MANAGER and the staff will follow.

    • " Although IBM may not have contributed directly to kernel code, they are doing a lot to improve LINUX's image in the mindset of MANAGERS of IT Project,"

      Just so noone gets the wrong idea, IBM has been contributing to kernel and OS code. Granted it's not out of charity...

    • INXS (Score:5, Funny)

      by badasscat ( 563442 ) <basscadet75@yah o o . c om> on Thursday January 30, 2003 @06:21PM (#5191872)
      "Plus we have heard that linux is an excellent replacement for legacy *inxs."

      I dunno, I think the first couple of INXS albums rock harder than any Linux distribution ever could.
      • I dunno, I think the first couple of INXS albums rock harder than any Linux distribution ever could.

        Just as long as Linus doesn't get with Kylie Minogue and erotically asphyxiate himself....

        You know, if you're banging Kylie Minogue, why the hell would you do *anything* which could cause death?

    • As they say, Win the MANAGER and the staff will follow.

      Win the manager, and the staff will be dragged kicking and screaming.

      If anyone's ever had Microsoft convince their manager of the wonders of Exchange and MS SQL, you know what I'm talking about.

    • Re:Well on the other hand, (Score:5, Insightful)

      by hansendc ( 95162 ) on Thursday January 30, 2003 @10:08PM (#5193284) Homepage
      Although IBM may not have contributed directly to kernel code, they are doing a lot to improve LINUX's image in the mindset of MANAGERS of IT Project,

      Whoa!! Look at Kernel Traffic's [zork.net] top 10 LKML posters from _this_ week:
      * 60 posts in 302K by "Martin J. Bligh"
      * 57 posts in 383K by William Lee Irwin III
      * 46 posts in 179K by Andrew Morton
      * 43 posts in 199K by Zwane Mwaikambo
      * 34 posts in 128K by Rob Wilkens
      * 33 posts in 118K by Greg KH
      * 31 posts in 323K by Adrian Bunk
      * 30 posts in 419K by Osamu Tomita
      * 29 posts in 119K by Rusty Russell
      * 27 posts in 81K by DervishD
      4 of those people work for IBM. I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader which 4 they are, because they disguise themselves well!

  • AIX is dead (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Bob Abooey ( 224634 ) <bababooey@techie.com> on Thursday January 30, 2003 @06:02PM (#5191690) Homepage Journal
    So is Solaris and HP-UX and IRIX, although Solaris will still be around for a while.

    Who do you think Linux has been taking market share away from? It hasn't been Windows as much as the hard core *nix's. The problem is that it doesn't pay IBM or Sun or HP to maintain their own version of *nix if they aren't able to sell enough service contracts and generate enough money to keep the OS moving forward. Thus they die and move to using Linux where they don'thave to invest as much money into research and dev because much of that is done for free.

    This is actually the rightful conclusion for *nix as all the splintering that happened is now going to un-happen and migrate to Linux.

    Makes sense to me.

  • But for how long? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by green pizza ( 159161 ) on Thursday January 30, 2003 @06:02PM (#5191694) Homepage
    I'm going to try not to make this sound like a troll... but it's hard to be politically correct while looking a decade down the road....

    Like IBM, SGI is also kinda-sorta planning on moving entirely to Linux in time. This makes me wonder what the long-term path is...

    Once upon a time IBM and SGI were working with oldschool AT&T SysV Unix and BSD Unix, after years of tweaks, overhauls, and rewrites, each company ended up with their own distinct version of Unix. Obviously this won't happen immediately with Linux, but I would venture to guess that there will be significant forking over time. Right now SGI is using a slightly modified version of Red Hat 7.2 on their Altix machines (basicly Red Hat plus the patches from their "ProPack" overlay). As time goes on I would almost bet that the long term goals of IBM, SGI and others will not match up to those of RedHat and other distro builders. I have a feeling that, oh, maybe 10 years down the road each major big iron builder (IBM, HP, maybe SGI and Sun) will have their own distinct (and somewhat "weird") version of Linux.... and soon the term "Linux" will be as generic as "Unix".

    This makes me wonder.... why bother with the Make-Work of moving to Linux in the first place? Why no keep working on the existing tuned kernels of AIX, IRIX, Tru64, etc?

    • Re:But for how long? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Amazing Quantum Man ( 458715 ) on Thursday January 30, 2003 @06:17PM (#5191830) Homepage
      The difference is that because Linux is GPL, IBM and SGI have to release their tweaks. They can't keep them proprietary.

      • Re:But for how long? (Score:3, Insightful)

        by pnatural ( 59329 )
        Um, no. They only have to release their changes if they also distribute said changes.
        • Um, no. They only have to release their changes if they also distribute said changes.

          And selling the software along with the big iron they're releasing qualifies as distribution. Technically, all they have to do is release their patches along with the iron; the GPL simply requires that you give the source to anyone who you gave/sold a binary to. Of course, those would be free to merge them back into Linux.

    • Re:But for how long? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by dustman ( 34626 ) <dleary@[ ]c.net ['ttl' in gap]> on Thursday January 30, 2003 @06:18PM (#5191839)
      This makes me wonder.... why bother with the Make-Work of moving to Linux in the first place? Why no keep working on the existing tuned kernels of AIX, IRIX, Tru64, etc?

      Give me the url where I can download and compile the source for AIX or IRIX, and then maybe I'll understand how things are "the same".

      Because Linux is GPL, all of their modifications will have to be GPL'ed as well. IBM has excellent stability, reduncancy, and scalability. SGI is known for having good graphics and scalability... When all of their modifications have to be opened under the GPL, everyone will benefit.

      And, when IBM (and other giants) have invested lots of time, money, and code in Linux, if some shyster comes along and tries legal loophole tricks to keeping their code closed, they will be slapped down.
    • I would venture to guess that there will be significant forking over time.

      Linux is already forked like a fjord. The various flavours of the gazillion and one shared libraries cause serious headaches, and some people (at least at redhat) appear to think that RPM "solves" packaging, because each distro is in fact an independant and different operating system, despite them sharing 99.9999999% of the code.

      Ah, it's just a rant. Hopefully at some point Linux the platform will get some semblance of stability, probably once it's caught up somewhat with Windows and major releases occur less often.

      This makes me wonder.... why bother with the Make-Work of moving to Linux in the first place? Why no keep working on the existing tuned kernels of AIX, IRIX, Tru64, etc?

      Because impressively big though these companies are, the rest of the world is bigger, and they know that they can't match the speed and innovation that's coming out of linux. They just don't have several hundred kernel engineers working on it (I bet).

    • I think you answer your own question . . . (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Idou ( 572394 ) on Thursday January 30, 2003 @07:19PM (#5192299) Journal
      "Why no keep working on the existing tuned kernels of AIX, IRIX, Tru64, etc?"

      Well, why don't IBM and SGI just stick with their old 'nixes then? If you fork Linux, you go into a full loop and have the same type of problems you had with old 'nixes. The beauty of Linux is not what it has become, but where it will always be going. Fork it, and you lose the most important "feature." I certainly think that each company will be using "niched" versions eventually (think, Debian vs. RH), but I really can't see why they would find it economical to fork from the main branch and return to the dark ages.

      Linux provides an open standard that allows anyone (individual or corporation) to contribute to a standard without the fear that they will not be able to benefit from those contributions or, worse, have those contributions be used against them.

      Maintaining an OS is becoming way too expensive, unless you have a near perfect monopoly and can control market prices. Smart companies will start to treat the OS as a "standard" (like HTML) and forget trying to control it. Instead, they will focus on building powerful applications to run on this "standard" OS, without fear that the owner will eventually decide to compete with those applications, leveraging their control of the standard, since there is no one owner in existence to control the OS.

      It is my opinion that IBM is one of the smartest companies is existence these days. . .

  • Not quite what it seems... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by joebagodonuts ( 561066 ) <cmkrnl&gmail,com> on Thursday January 30, 2003 @06:03PM (#5191706) Homepage Journal
    The article points out that AIX is handled by the Server group at IBM, not the software group. So while this Mills guy says exciting things, he isn't necessarily the guy to make that decision.

    • Re:Not quite what it seems... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by McSpew ( 316871 ) on Thursday January 30, 2003 @07:46PM (#5192441)

      The article points out that AIX is handled by the Server group at IBM, not the software group. So while this Mills guy says exciting things, he isn't necessarily the guy to make that decision.

      Excellent point. Anybody who actually read the article (and it's been up [com.com] on News.com [news.com]'s website for a couple of days now) knows that IBM's AIX folks are surprised to hear that AIX's days are apparently numbered.

      Basically, the article quotes one guy from IBM as saying that he foresees the day when Linux will replace AIX in IBM's lineup. The odds are that he's right simply because it costs so much to develop a Unix and keep it current, and IBM wants to be able to have you scale up from a low-end Intel box to a Z-series mainframe with any stop in between and take your software with you. Linux is the one OS that runs on all of IBM's hardware.

      But that said, it'll be awhile and the AIX guys won't go quietly. They'll probably have some kind of AIX-compatibility libraries that they'll license to their customers the way SCO [sco.com] is planning to do with their libraries. IBM may also port their AIX management tools to Linux and license those separately, as well. Who knows what the future will hold, but it's likely that Linux will simply absorb AIX's capabilities in IBM's product lineup at some point. This means that even if AIX goes away, it won't really go away--it'll just change shape.

      One last point. As someone pointed out in the article, "IBM has never decommissioned an operating system, and they're not about to start now."

  • OS400 (Score:3, Interesting)

    by axxackall ( 579006 ) on Thursday January 30, 2003 @06:04PM (#5191709) Homepage Journal
    What's happened to OS400?

    Will it be also forgotten?

    It has many interesting features [ibm.com]. Will IBM port them to Linux as it did with some of AIX ones (JFS is just one example)?

    • Re:OS400 (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Dr Caleb ( 121505 )
      It is alive and well. I use OS400 on two beasts, and have the upgrade to V5R2M0 on it's way.

      IBM supports Linux on the AS/400, but equally supports OS400.

    • Re:OS400 (Score:3, Interesting)

      by ender81b ( 520454 )
      MY dad runs a as/400 shop and recently attended a ibm conference. One of the cool new things you can do with the latest release of os/400 is run virtual instances of Linux (SuSe, Red Hat, and one other are supported). Much like VMware or a jailed BSD partition. Specify X amount of CPU time X amount of ram/disk space, etc. It is very, very cool.

  • porting software (Score:5, Interesting)

    by PD ( 9577 ) <slashdotlinux@pdrap.org> on Thursday January 30, 2003 @06:05PM (#5191721) Homepage Journal
    I work for a small company in Austin TX that ports software. We like to brag that we can port anything to anything, but in reality, all the work that I seem to be doing is porting from either Solaris or HP-UX to Linux. AIX takes a very close second to the targets that we are porting to. Of course, this is very biased, since we're an IBM business partner. :-) I'm sure there's ports going on somewhere to Solaris and HP-UX.

    In all of the arrangements that I've been involved with IBM on, their people have been completely indifferent about porting to Linux in preference to AIX. They simply don't seem to care what the hardware is running, as long as the customer is buying shiny new IBM boxes.

    Something interesting though - IBM's Visual Age for C++ compiler was a pain in the ass to figure out. There's a zillion command line switches, and getting the right ones set to build proper dynamic libraries took a bit of figuring out. gcc was much nicer in that regard. But, now that I've got them figured out, I really like IBM's compiler more than gcc 2.95. I haven't had the luck of using gcc 3.2.1 yet (third party libraries aren't typically built with it yet, and I use Debian at home) but I can't wait. That new gcc compiler will really be sweet.
  • IBM Calls Spock to find out Linux "Logical Successor" To AIX
  • This isn't even a new thing [everything2.com].

    It's pretty obvious why IBM are taking a serious look at changing over to a whole new kind of *nix. Simply compare the two. Before you read this article how many of you - and honestly, now - how many of you didn't know what AIX was? At least a couple, I can be sure. On the other hand, who reading Slashdot has never heard of Linux?

    AIX is an obscure, nasty system that costs IBM money to maintain. Linux, if I remember my first foray into the operating system correctly, cost me naught but a handful of blank CDs and every other IRC monkey could give me free techsupport for it.

    I rest my proverbial case.

  • No mystery in IBM's interest (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 30, 2003 @06:11PM (#5191777)
    I've never thought that there was any mystery in IBM's interest in Linux. Their product line has no common OS. Linux turns the MVS, CMS, OS/400, AIX, Windows, etc., etc. etc., muddle of completely different operating systems for every flavor of hardware into something intelligible: We run linux top to bottom!!!

    It has added bonuses too:
    It weakens Microsoft's operating systems monopoly
    It gives IBM another crack at selling their apps on hardware MS would own if it ran Widows
    It might even be payback for making IBM pay significantly higher royalties for Win95 than other large customers (as payback for OS/2 & Lotus Smartsuite). http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/the_company_fi le/368660.stm
    Gives IBM a chance to sell system integration services and service contracts.
    Provides programmers world-wide to contribute to IBM's success
    Gives IBM a story that sounds similar to Sun's:
    Sun: Complete binary compatibility from Desktop to Midframe.
    IBM: You can run linux top to bottom

    No, I don't think that there is any surprise in this at all.

    • While it would be nice to be able to run Linux applications on any piece of IBM hardware, Linux will never be a replacement for MVS or OS/400. Those operating systems have capabilities that will never be replicated in Linux. The question is, do you need those capabilities and are you willing to pay for them?
  • ... is my biggest fear. I've seen so many companies move from being Solaris/HP-UX shops to Linux.

    A world in which UNIX is loses out, is a world that Microsoft would like very much. Fighting against UNIX vendors is much harder than fighting against Linux vendors, especially since the Linux companies wont have that kind of money (you can't charge for Linux boxen what you charge for a UNIX box) to fight back

    Just my two cents...
    • When Linux wins, UNIX does not lose out; it wins. In case you didn't notice, Linux is a UNIX variant, and this from IBM is a major acknowledgement that Linux is uniting UNIX, something that the industry attempted but failed miserably with in the '80s. In part, this is why Windows won (it is more complex, but the UNIX splintering was very good for MS).

      No, you can't charge as much for the system, but it doesn't cost you as much to produce either. It means all of the former UNIX, soon to be Linux vendors have to get a lot more competetive. They will now have to compete head-to-head with quality, service and support. Some will lose out and disappear, but the customers will win. It's all about value.

      I doubt that Microsoft sees this UNIX unification as good for them because it means their competition is a lot more unified. No, this process isn't a done deal yet, but the handwriting is on the wall. Keep in mind that each hardware vendor that survives will probably have their own Linux distro that is pre-loaded and fully configured for their hardware. This makes a fully functional Linux desktop a lot more likely, and it also means that the ISVs will start targetting Linux a lot more often. In the days of a splinterred UNIX, it was just too costly to target all of the flavors because each was a unique port. With Linux you can probably just do a build for each platform, and in many cases produce a single CD release with all the versions. This makes it a lot more practical because one Linux port gets you a large market. In the end, this will also drive the Non-Linux UNIXes out of the market (Solaris probably being the last hold-out).

  • Linux replacing AIX..... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Chanc_Gorkon ( 94133 ) <gorkon&gmail,com> on Thursday January 30, 2003 @06:16PM (#5191820)
    Not now. The Linux kernel, while improving, does not have the enterprise features needed by those who use AIX. That said, I do believe Linux can replace the AIX kernel. If and when it does, you still have to possibly port some of those tools. For example, AIX has some great commands (not just smit) that are very nice. Ones that come to mind are lsdev, lsfs, lsvg, lspv, the odm itself(not as bad as you think), lsattr and many others. Smit is a lifesaver when you just can't remember the commands to do a certain thing. Also, AIX's ability to expand filesystems on the fly, the LVM, HACMP, SP and other things are essential for AIX shops. The pSeries machines (otherwise known as RS/6000) are IBM's best selling servers. The Regatta (p690) is doing extremely well. Almost everyone I have come across who runs AIX (except us....we're cheap, er poor bastards!) has a p690. Also the Shark (Enterprise Storage System) is tremendous. In 2 racks you get redundant storage. One rack can die and the other takes over. Each side has it's own battery backup, plus there's 348 MB of Non Volitle storage. Also you can have 22 TB of SSA in that rack! All of that works because of the fine work IBM has done on AIX. Linux can replace it, but it will be a while! :)

    • Re:Linux replacing AIX..... (Score:4, Funny)

      by Wakkow ( 52585 ) on Thursday January 30, 2003 @06:50PM (#5192049) Homepage
      Each side has it's own battery backup

      Here's hoping those batteries work better than the laptop ones do.... =)
    • FWIW, Linux already has LVM & JFS, although I'm not sure of the level of stability. From experience, the AIX LVM is rock-solid, and I've created, mirrored & expanded filesystems on the fly very easily.

      As for the ESS, it's platform independant; in fact, we're looking at using it on HP servers using the PSSP stuff to mirror across arrays as well.

      HACMP has caused us some issues, but that could be down to the comparitively new hooks with GPFS (which, BTW, is also available for linux) it has to be used as an NFS server.

      Finally, we don't have a p690 either (well, not at our site; I think they have one elswhere in the group).

  • Linux is what IBM really wanted... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Kjella ( 173770 ) on Thursday January 30, 2003 @06:34PM (#5191951) Homepage
    IBM is doing fine selling server hardware (w/software). They never wanted to be in the OS business in the first place. First they gave the marked to Microsoft, then they figured it was a bad idea and tried to strike back with OS/2, but it didn't work out. They don't mind that they're not "in control" of Linux. They just don't want someone else to be either.

    However, now that IBM is just "one of the crowd" selling PCs, I don't think you can expect the same support when it comes to the desktop. But everything that makes a good back-end server and server tools, goes a long way to make a good desktop too.

    Kjella
    • However, now that IBM is just "one of the crowd" selling PCs,


      It might surprise you to hear this, but it's gotta be said: there are lots of computers, billions of dollars worth of them, that you can't buy at Best Buy. Many of them that you can't even plug into the wall.

      And on the subject of OS/2, IBM and Microsoft wrote OS/2 as partners. Plus, part of what kept the clone vendors from adopting OS/2 is that they didn't want to have to buy an OS from one of their competitors (Microsoft is not a hardware vendor, they weren't giving $$ for each unit sold to one of their competitors in the hardware market, the way they were whenever they sold a machine bundled with OS/2).

      Your history really, really needs some work, but then so does most of the rest of what you typed.
  • From the article:
    It's not difficult to connect Linux to the profit motive at IBM. The company said it had $1.5-billion (U.S.) in Linux-related revenue in 2002. Its Linux customers include Thrifty car rental, China Post, the Bank of Birmingham in Alabama, Unilever, J.P. Morgan, Tommy Hilfiger, Dresdner Kleinwort Wasserstein and L.L. Bean.


    Though IBM relies on partners such as Red Hat and SuSE to produce the versions of Linux used by these customers, Big Blue makes money by selling servers, additional software and services.
    $1.5 Billion USD is a lot of cash...

  • it's a long range plan (Score:2, Interesting)

    by b17bmbr ( 608864 )
    look, IBM has been around for like forever. they certainly know more about long range planning then any tech company today. they have their share of screw-ups. but, guess what? they survivied them now the tech industry is essentially lining up in two camps:

    camp1 vs. camp2
    linux vs. windows
    open vs. closed
    standards vs. secrets

    The truth is that you can't beat microsoft, and in fact, it would be a bad thing. competition is good for all. what IBM is linin up to do, like sun is, like even apple, s this: create a scenario whereby m$ HAS TO, HAS NO OTHER CHOICE, but to play nicely with others. even if linux get's lets say 8% desktop share, it's server share is rising. so, IBM sells iron, and people trust IBM's iron. what is running on it for many is not as important as the fact that it says "IBM" on the side.

    by pimping linux so hard, creates mindset and mindshare for linux. what IBM fears, and most tech people fear,is with m$'s desktop %, they can use it to say, create a block on all non m$ "technologies". think encrypted filesystems for one.

    computer: "gee, this is some strange 'non-encrypted, non-trustworthy computing' computer i'm trying to connect to. sorry can't do it.
    that is all. linux, hell, all open source and standards based technologies are the maginot line against m$ hegemony. let's hope the technloggical equivalent of belgium is better defended!!
  • ... und zees ess ein big butt.. IBM'd have to start seriously porting AIX 'premium features' first.

    Not that I necessarily include the ODM or SMIT in that list ;)

    Seriously, heavy-duty GPL'd LVM, braindead plug-n-play (cfgmgr anyone? ;), coherent distributed systems management, and multiprocessor/cluster scalability kernel improvements would be needed before AIX customers would consider moving their critical apps over..

    Incidentally, is there FBCON/ESCON support in the Linux kernel? I haven't booted a Linux box in a little while to check :/
  • Linux Is New UniX

  • It makes perfect sense (Score:5, Interesting)

    by steveha ( 103154 ) on Thursday January 30, 2003 @07:51PM (#5192487) Homepage
    IBM is in the business of selling hardware. I really doubt they view AIX as a profit center. If they could spend zero dollars on AIX and sell just as many computers, that's what they would want.

    And guess what -- that's what's going to happen. They are migrating every cool thing from AIX to Linux. At some point, when they judge Linux good enough, they will roll out Linux as a replacement for AIX, and freeze AIX development.

    The quandry of custom versions of *NIX is this: when any other *NIX (such as Linux) adds a cool new feature, you need to pay your developers to add a similar feature to your *NIX. If you could just adopt Linux, then if anyone in the world adds that feature to Linux, you inherit it for free.

    This was an easier decision for IBM than it would be for Sun. Many people buy Sun hardware because they want to run Solaris. The day will come when Linux can do everything Solaris can do, and Sun won't be happy about it.

    steveha

  • Unix architecture in "multidecades"? Please no. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by const ( 62774 ) on Thursday January 30, 2003 @08:18PM (#5192682)

    I really hope that somewhat better will be picked up by mainstream in during current decade. Unix architecture is flawed in too many ways (NT is not better either), and it is completly unprepared for running untrusted or partially trusted code.

    Worms, viruses, troyans are very much possible for unix as they are for Windows. If unix on desktop will ever get Windows market share it will have the same amount of security problems as Windows have today. The problem is in OS architecture rather then implmentation.

    There are attempts to develop more secure and safely usable OS-es (for example EROS [eros-os.org]), and I hope that one of them will be usable in decade or so.

  • The real issue in Linux vs. other UNIX OSes... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by frank_adrian314159 ( 469671 ) on Thursday January 30, 2003 @08:19PM (#5192686) Homepage
    ... is that UNIX OS'es have gone about as far as they can. The paradigm has been mined, scalability ensured, and so forth. It is no surprise that a final "best of breed" UNIX is being produced. The only amazing thing is that it's being done via open source.

    As we move forward, there will be variants of the common OS code base for different platforms and applications and, certainly, more applications and GUI's than you can shake a stick at, but the OS qua OS is pretty much finished. This is actually a good thing. It will lead to a stable platform for development of applications while freeing up OS kernel folks to actually do something new and different.

  • Crucial part of the article (Score:4, Interesting)

    by shut_up_man ( 450725 ) on Thursday January 30, 2003 @10:09PM (#5193287) Homepage
    Customers have a finite amount of money they can spend on applications, hardware, operating systems, storage and the other components of their computing infrastructure, Mr. Mills explained. "Reducing the cost of the operating system allows them to spend more money elsewhere," he said.

    I think this is the crucial part of this article, and the crucial point that most Linux-embracing companies are running with. With Microsoft, the money goes Microsoft and Intel/AMD. MS OSes only run on Intel/AMD hardware. Microsoft's apps only run on Microsoft OSes. Basically, IBM and Sun and the rest are getting bugger all money from this entire market segment, and widespread acceptence of Linux might change all that.

    If Linux gets big, these guys are back in the game, getting a slice of everyone's cash. They can sell hardware that runs Linux, and their apps can run on a platform not controlled by Microsoft. And, since Linux runs on everything from a watch to a toaster to a PC to bigass servers, their apps have the potential to be just about anywhere. That's a future IBM would love to come true.

    I've worked with a bunch of IBM and Lotus guys and gals, and daaaaammmmnnnn do they hate Microsoft. They'd put Redmond to the torch if they thought it would get them back in the game. I don't honestly think they'd smoke AIX to make Linux succeed, but they definitely see it is a brighter future.

Slashdot Top Deals

"It ain't over until it's over." -- Casey Stengel

Close