Red Hat Abandons Sparc 246
Mike Dubreuil writes: "When I went to download Red Hat Linux 7.0 for Sparc I was disappointed to learn RH is dropping support for the sparc processor line. They are claiming that there is a low demand for sparc versions This may be a major blow to the Linux community because Red Hat is the top vendor for commercial copies of Linux. Not to mention that they have the support in place to handle what large companies demand."
Update: 10/02 09:43 PM by CT : Bernhard Rosenkraenz wrote in to say "It is true that we will probably not release Red Hat Linux 7.0 for
sparc. However, this does NOT mean there won't be a Red Hat Linux 7.1 or
7.2 for sparc.
If, at some time, we decide to discontinue
commercial sparc support, we will turn Red Hat Linux for
sparc into a community effort."
Re:There nothing ironic here (Score:1)
Re:Sun would love this (Score:1)
Re:Sun would love this (Score:1)
Re:Like its a surprise? (Score:2)
Incidentally, /proc is older than linux. I first used it on SVR4, where it had simply the memory image of each process.
got Sparc? get Debian (Score:3)
"RedHat files anti-trust suit against fellow Linux distributor Debian"
We can't make money off of people when these freaks are giving it all away for free. Not only that, their logo looks better. He felt we had to do *something*.
.... mmm. no...
Re:Of Course They Dropped It (Score:2)
--
Re:NetBSD (Score:1)
PPC is not primarily controlled by Apple. IBM uses very similar, if not the same processors in their RS/6000 machines.
Re:how can something with (Score:1)
And why wouldn't you, if one may be enlightened to know?
--
Re:how can something with (Score:1)
Sun's business is hardware not software, same as Macintosh.
So linux running on sparc does not take away from Sun's market. Why do you think sun is welcoming linux ?
Re:Like its a surprise? (Score:2)
Solaris is not the ideal OS, it's /proc is primative compared to Linux, it's obviously more expensive. However, the advantages of having the manufacturer support their own OS are obvious. I KNOW all the drivers will work. I know that the X server will have decent performance.
If Linux was mainly hosted on Sparc, it would be different. But if I'm going to use Sparc hardware, I'm going to choose the OS which is most commonly used on that hardware.
Re:Who uses it? (Score:1)
Re:Sueing software companies? (Score:1)
I'm surprised they don't add a Bwahahahahaha! just for grins. :)
The whole "we need someone to sue" argument really is a load of crap.
More like an imaginary security blanket. It allows big-wigs to sleep at night.
James
Re:how can something with (Score:1)
There are three things that might happen to "the Open Source community" as a result of this.
These are listed in my estimate of decreasing likelihood. Most of the people who would care about RedHat dropping a marginal platform use some other distribution or operating system (which is why it's a marginal platform) and most of the people who run SPARCs are probably not running Linux.
In no case does anyone outside of "the Open Source community" even notice that this has happened. I'm sorry, but I just can't see this particular decision damaging Linux's reputation with the people who don't already use it. I believe that this is definitely a teapot-sized tempest.
Re:There may be others, but.... (Score:1)
Re:ReDHat - Sells out. (Score:2)
Second, if we decided to drop sparc support commercially, we'd also try to get a community effort on keeping the port alive going.
Third, this has nothing whatsoever to do with releasing a closed source version. Doing that would do harm to the entire community.
Dropping a rarely used port would hurt a part of the community, but actually benefit others (all the engineering time we're currently putting into fixing up sparc would go to other projects).
Linuxcare (Score:1)
When companies invest time and hardware in a service or operating system, they expect to do BUSINESS with a BUSINESS. The idea of freedom is antithetical to the entire idea of a business, and as such, they don't understand or like it (as a general rule). When you buy Windows, you are doing business with Microsoft. If you have a problem, you call Microsoft. When you buy RedHat, you are doing business with RedHat. If you have a problem, you call RedHat. When you download and install (or buy a copy of from CheapBytes.com) Debian, you are NOT doing business with Debian. Debian isn't a business. When you want support, you call some third part that had nothing to do with creating the OS? This may make sense to some people. This makes sense to people who understand the OpenSource ethic. This does not make sense to businesses.
Re:how can something with (Score:2)
Maybe the people tht are using SPARC machines just aren't using redhat... I know that my SPARC isn't and even if it did run RedHat I wouldn't have bought it from redhat.
Re:Sueing software companies? (Score:1)
Have you read the typical license agreements that most commerical software companies put out?
Yes, but when you buy a suppourt contract (which is really RedHat's product, not the distribution), you're basically buying an arse to kick.
You can buy suppourt contracts from M$, but they're not great (and terribly expensive).
The software you buy as an end user, and the software you buy as a corporation are the same. It's the level of suppourt (and liability) that the vendor gives you that's different.
Amen, pass the zigzag (Score:1)
A Linux for every platform. (Score:1)
There's a Linux for Cisco. There's a Linux for Palm. There's Linux for S/390. There's always going to be a new Linux port for something. SuSE has Linux for SPARC. The current trend is to make Linux run on everything imaginable (if you had a toaster that had been hacked up, you could run Linux on that), and I doubt, with the amount of people owning SPARC-based machines that Linux on SPARC will die with Red Hat not supporting it.
Red Hat is a commercial entity. They make money off of Red Hat on x86. That's their plan. If SPARC ports don't make money, they cut it. However, I doubt that suddenly, because of this, the SPARC platform will be forgotten.
Time to move on, and try something different. My wife runs NetBSD on our SPARCstation 10. When we get a copy of SuSE for SPARC, we'll probably give it a go as well.
No harm done. Just a different path to take.
Long Live The Alternatives!
Re:Of Course They Dropped It (Score:1)
Re:how can something with (Score:1)
Re:Like its a surprise? (Score:2)
2. The biggest problem of RedHat is QA. Quality assurance. They have tons of bugs all the time. As Sparc is the only BigEndian RedHat platform (alpha is little endian under linux) it will be the first one to bite the bullet if someone in redhat's management looks towards decreasing bug fix tunraround times and improving QA. It is the obvious decision, but it is wrong. Guess why... Because auditing for endianness bugs gives an additional run on general bugs and solves them.
3. And another important factor is that there are very few people that will have both Sun kit and low bandwidth lines. Most of them do not pay for CDs. They do not need to. They can download an entire distro while going for a coffee break.
RedHat support "in place" ? (Score:2)
JDK1.3 final released (Score:1)
Who to Sue (Score:1)
But people think if they can pick a target they can sue. So what targets dose Linux have?
If you use RedHat then you sue RedHat...
If you use Debian then you sue the Debian organisation.
Etc..
Alternitively you may sue the Free Software Foundation (As most of Linux is GNU software anyway and comes from the FSF).
All that asside.. If you sue any of thies organisations.. You'll lose..
Sue Microsoft... You'll lose...
Same deal.. diffrent group.. and there IS a target to sue.. So your legal team can look like dopes..
In the mean time...
Sence like the early 1980s software companys have included a shrinkwrap liccens that says they are libal only up to the ammount you paid for the software...
Thats right... I could never sue the people who wrote most of the software for my old Commodore 64.
But I had targets...
So for people who want targets.. Yes they exist.. sue the Distro... or alternitivly the FSF.
Not that it makes any diffrence.
Re:NetBSD (Score:2)
I'd just like to point out, we're talking about RedHat. I assume Linux support for Sparc is going to continue, it's simply that there will not be any more official RedHat releases for Sparc.
The university I am at has started using Intel based machines for most things, including running Solaris for the honours students. I beleive this decision was based far more on cost than anything else.
Basically, if people want to run Linux, they'll probably buy Intel. If people are buying Sparc processors, there's a very good chance they wish to run Solaris.
RedHat is not the Only Distro ... (Score:1)
Re:Red Hat is NOT the only distro... (Score:2)
Re:It isn't true. (Score:3)
think back, 6.0 didn't have support for ALPHA or SPARC that came in 6.1
Debian Isn't Unified Enough (Score:2)
The fact of the matter is that Debian simply does not have the same kind of real tech-support that RedHat does. You can't call someone at the Debian corporation and demand to know how to get Apache to stop segfaulting. You can't call Debian and ask for a recommendation between web-traffic analysis programs, or credit-card-verification systems. You can't call Debian at all - it's a collective. There is no real responsibility, because no one person is doing anything. There is no headquarters. Instead there are consultants who agree to give Debian advice. Tech support is an IRC channel. This isn't how a big business prefers to do business. There's no culpability, and above all, no one to sue when it all goes south. Debian's form of support is GREAT when they're dealing with individual users - heck, I'd even venture to say it's the best out there. But for a company, they don't want to have to rely on IRC (where someone can just sign off without answering any questions). They don't want to have to rely on consultants with no real tie to the COMPANY that provides the Debian service - and especially not when they charge a minimum of $100/hr.
Re:Of Course They Dropped It (Score:2)
Exactly. If a company's going to shell out tens of thousand dollars for *each* SPARC server kit, they're not going to balk at paying a few dozen thousands for Solaris, so it will be supported by the original vendor.
Who this hurts, of course, are the individual owners of SPARC kits. Of course, these people who own the kits will probably not be buying their copy of RH at places like CompUSSR....
--
Re:Well.. Solaris is better on Sparc.. (Score:4)
From ultralinux.org...
Here [ultralinux.org] is the link....
Really people... This took 5 seconds to find. Don't make up stuff as you go please.
Re:Debian Isn't Unified Enough (Score:3)
--
Debian supports sparc, of course (Score:3)
Red Hat is NOT the only distro... (Score:4)
öööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööö
Of Course They Dropped It (Score:3)
It's the nature of the beast.
SPARC stands for... (Score:2)
EMUSE.NET [emuse.net]
This is just an annoying way of being cheap. (Score:2)
Re:Red Hat is NOT the only distro... (Score:2)
And with Debian you get all the nice auto-upgrading features that RedHat is just starting to add, for free.
--
Try FreeBSD on your Alpha (Score:2)
FreeBSD with the SRM firmware was a breaze to install. It was just like the i386 install--easy. No dicking with the ARC firmware was great. Just "boot dka1" (that's my cd-rom drive. Type "show d" at the SRM prompt to get a list of your devices.)
FreeBSD (I've since tried NetBSD and OpenBSD, with similar success on older alpha) seemed to be much more polished on that architecture than other OSen.
Hope this helps.
-Peter
I seem to have stepped on your toes (Score:2)
When I search for the answer to a problem with Intel Linux, I eventually find the answer among the hundreds of hits. When I search for the answer to a problem with Alpha Linux, I often don't find the answer among the dozens of hits.
As a datapoint: I've been using Linux for 4-5 years on Intel. I'm very comfortable installing it. I've been using Alpha Linux for 6 months and I've installed it on 3 machines (multiple times on 2 of them). On all 3 machines I struggled for at least a day (and in one case multiple weeks) trying to get Linux installed. Yes, I did eventually get it, with many thanks going to the efforts of the AlphaLinux people (and mailing lists). But it's still nowhere like as well-documented as Intel.
--
Is RedHat 7 any good? (Score:2)
Re:Companies are using other platforms (Score:3)
Becasue there's a lot of sparc32 hardware out there going cheap (take a look a Ebay sometime), that Sun have dropped support for as of Solaris 8. If you want up to date software (IPv6 support, for example) on your IPX, you have to run something other than Solaris.
Re:Debian Isn't Unified Enough (Score:3)
Re:Red Hat is NOT the only distro... (Score:2)
Exactly, this is a good time to repeat the mantra, "Linux is not Redhat." I mean seriously, it might be inconvient for people who run Linux on Sparc, but it will not be a deathblow. As long as there is a userbase development of Linux will continue. These days you can probably find a version of Linux for your toaster, I really hope we don't have to worry about an established port of Linux.
Red Hat top vendor? Not anymore apparently... (Score:2)
By the way, does anyone here has the latest figures from PC-Data?
Redhat's claims are untrue (Score:2)
I also asked for a sparc version of their secure web server. I would have bought it if they had it. But they didn't, and even said they had no plans for it. I called again later and ask for it again, and they said no one wanted it when in fact they keep no records of demand at all.
The fact is, Redhat is not interested in supporting other than the one largest platform. As Microsoft is to all operating systems, Redhat is to Linux; they are the "big guys" and as such, they can do, and ignore, whatever they please. The sparc platform isn't in their business plan because their business plan has changed to pursue big corporations (which probably is the right thing to do for their stockholders). They should just tell the truth and say that sparc is just too small a market for their grandiose plans.
Re:Companies are using other platforms (Score:2)
I hear this kind of reasoning a lot. I just don't get it. An IPX was a kick-ass system for it's day. Now, it's the rough equivalent of a P90 with much poorer support available for video, scanning and many other hardware periperals where under Linux for X86, you have all of the above plus the average P90 is going for even less than that IPX! Why would you waste your time?
The only reason to run Suns is 1) you have a broken application that cannot take advantage of multiple systems and so you need to build it a big old E10k pile of iron to run on (don't go Linux in that case) or b) because your management won't accept that Intel-based systems are "enterprise ready" (in which case they won't accept Linux for roughly the same non-reason).
If you're looking to build out high-capacity infrastructure you go with a large farm of identical 2u Linux or BSD systems (e.g. VA/Linux' FullOn 2xxx series which I have had nothing but good luck with) and you parcel them out as needed. For storage, you probably go with Network Appliance who have the baddest network-attached storage in the business (you'll never go back after taking your first snapshot... 200G of disk... backup time?... 5 seconds).
So, for the home enthusiast Sparc loses. For the the business user this is not even a question, as your constraints are likely pretty simple.
To be a run-anywhere OS, (Score:2)
So RH didn't sell that many copies. Oh, waaaah! As if it costs them anything. (If they've got the machines to do the builds now, then they'll have the machines to do the builds tomorrow. Builds can be scripted, so time = money is irrelevent.)
This isn't about money, folks. If they can't afford to mass-produce, they can always produce in low-volume batches and charge the extra.
So what -is- it about? Beats me. Looks more like a decision made to stir up controversy than one made on sound business or programming reasons.
Re:Well.. Solaris is better on Sparc.. (Score:2)
Re:Debian Isn't Unified Enough (Score:2)
Re:how can something with (Score:2)
Re:Who uses it? (Score:2)
I totally agree with you about support for platforms other than Intel. Most people have little to no experience with any other platform from the Intel norm, which makes trying to get help with a problem on an Alpha (or Sparc or MIPS or...) a total pain in the ass. Much of the documentation is outdated on these platforms.
However, the truth of the matter in the case of the Sparc version of RedHat is that I am sure it probably didn't sell well, if at all. Most businesses with Sparcs would probably run Solaris on them. I would guess that most of the Sparc Linux users are individuals who either are using Linux on Sparc workstations at work, or are using it on Sparcs that they own and run at home. The number of people running a Sparc in their house is significantly lower than people running PPC or Alpha, and is definitely miniscule in comparison to the number of x86 users.
RedHat is *not* Linux... true... but many people see RedHat as the representation of Linux, especially the PHBs. When they see something like this happening with RedHat, they assume that it is true for all Linux. That is where this is truly a tragedy for the community. RedHat is the leading distribution (usage-wise, I'm not wanting to start a distro flame war) of Linux. Until that changes, RedHat *is* Linux is the eyes of most of the public (that even know what Linux is).
My 2 x 10^-2
Sueing software companies? (Score:3)
There's no culpability, and above all, no one to sue when it all goes south
Have you read the typical license agreements that most commerical software companies put out? They pretty much say that even if the program erases your hard drive, you're just out of luck. The whole "we need someone to sue" argument really is a load of crap.
It's probably more snobbishness than anything (Score:2)
So I suggested Linux. The UNIX guy overheard that and said that he would take the box back if the guy wanted to run Linux on it. "If you want a linux box, use a PC, that's what it's for."
With that kind of attitude, it's no big wonder that they're not selling very many.
Re:Of Course They Dropped It (Score:2)
Re:Sueing software companies? (Score:2)
But yes, a corporation generally spends more and expects greater support for software. A support contract for say Oracle might be $150,000/year and for that you get 24 hour access to an engineer.
Actually Oracle does it in a rather interesting way, since they have offices world wide, if you call at 2am midwest time you may very well be connected to someone in the United Kingdom.
Re:Linuxcare (Score:2)
If you would have taken, say 30 seconds or so, the time to check any of the brokerage houses out there, you would have seen that many dozens of privately funded companies chose to delay an IPO.
But it doesn't sound like a support structure I'd want to depend on for mission-critical systems.
What difference does it make if it is a privately owned company or a publicly traded company?
{snip] they expect to do BUSINESS with a BUSINESS.
Since when is a private business not a business?
Re:This is just an annoying way of being cheap. (Score:2)
Acutlly Tatung and Ross made clones.
You gereally buy from a resleer instead of Sun directly nad get a better price.
Re:So let me get this straight... (Score:2)
Re:Of Course They Dropped It (Score:2)
Not a big issue since there is Mandrake for Sparc (Score:3)
[By the way, the mirrors are here: http://www.linux-mandrake.com/e n/f tp.php3#usparc [linux-mandrake.com]]
Headline SHOULD have been (Score:2)
On i386, alpha, arm, m68k, PowerPC, sparc, and even Sparc64, Debian is still the breakfast of champions. Once you get past dselect, that is. But they're working on it! That's what apt is for.
Red Hat is not Linux (Score:2)
RedHat for the Alpha dropped too... (Score:2)
Re:Free Solaris? hah! (Re:Of Course They Dropped I (Score:2)
Re:Who uses it? (Score:2)
All other Alphas (except maybe ruffian) are a breeze to install linux on and the documentation is plentiful.
Regards,
Peter
--
www.alphalinux.org
A blow? (Score:2)
Ummmm... (Score:2)
You, and all the people who are agreeing with you are either
- not in the real world
- independently wealth (see above)
- dumb
I say cheers to RedHat for being bold enough to support Sparc in the first place, and again for being smart enough to drop said support. I hope they are able to improve the core capabilities by removing Sparc from their support, design, and testing.Besides, I'm sure that nine out of ten of you whiners don't even own a Sparc and are just upset in principle, that you're no longer getting something for free.
"Don't trolls get tired?"
Wasabi Systems + NetBSD (Score:2)
There's more to Linux than Redhat (Score:3)
Like its a surprise? (Score:2)
NetBSD (Score:2)
Maybe RH is trying to work some deal with Intel? Maybe it's because Solaris is mostly free and has full driver support for all hardware?
Companies are using other platforms (Score:2)
Can't blame them, since they're generally cheaper...
So it does not say anything about Linux usage, more about Sparc not being a competitive offer (I think/guess)
It is a pity however, the more platforms supported the better, ofcourse!
There may be others, but.... (Score:4)
Re:You have Solaris 8 (Score:2)
Yeah, if you have a Sun4M model CPU or better. Most people out there running Linux and SPARC are doing so to get productivity out of older SPARC hardware that Solaris(tm) does not support. Sun has always had a very nasty habit of dropping old hardware compatibility with new versions of their OS.
Of course is a pity RedHat no longer support SPARC, but like someone already said, you have many other distros with SPARC support, and in my opinion better than RedHat.
Both true and false depending on which OS distro you side with. For my money NetBSD seems to run much faster than Linux on older SPARC hardware and Debian has broken pieces but still holds together despite all.
Linux in general is probably more "app" compatible than most BSD based 'nix. (Caveat: That last statement may not be true now, I haven't looked recently - no flamebait meant.)
Regardless Solaris is not the choice for older SPARC hardware - unless you never want to be up to date...
The Tick - "Spoon!"
NEO - "There is no spoon."
Re:Well.. Solaris is better on Sparc.. (Score:2)
These benchmarks: What exactly are they measuring? No information is given about the hardware other than it is a 50 Mhz system.
My suspicion is it's a Sparc 10 with an SM50 processor card?
If so, the benchmarks aren't measuring 64-bit optimizations that exist in either Solaris or Linux. Perhaps on the UltraSparc 10 this other person has, Solaris does run better.
The benchmarks do clearly show that disk access is faster under Solaris than Linux. This is a very important aspect of total system performance.
What about dual-processor performance? It's relatively easy to add an extra SM50 processor to that Sparcstation 10. How does Linux fare compared to Solaris in that capacity?
I also read the comments on why linux is faster than Solaris. I wouldn't be too sure of that either, over the years the Linux kernel has become more and more complex and has adapted a lot of the same overhead that exists in commercial OS to solve the same problems.
Over time, who is to say that they won't look the same just Linux taking the long road to get to the same point?
It isn't true. (Score:5)
The sparc machines are still part of our build system, and we won't just drop it off.
If we ever decide to discontinue sparc support commercially, the sparc port will be turned into a community effort.
Sparc support may be back in 7.1 (Score:2)
Oh get real... (Score:2)
The conspiracy theories are just flat unlikely. It's a HELL of a lot more probable that they stopped supporting the platform because there were about 12 downloads of Sparc Redhat, and those were all the mirror sites.
It's not a popular platform for Linux. Aren't they being smart by re-allocationg their Sparc guys to some other project that will benefit more people?
Re:Of Course They Dropped It (Score:2)
So? (Score:2)
Apparently no one wants support for the SPARC version. So why would any company want to provide support for a product that has no market?
RedHat decided to do this so they wouldn't have to throw money away, they do have a commitment to their shareholders now to make money. You know, if you see this as an un-claimed market, you could start your own company and support a SPARC version of Linux.
But, alas, it's a bad choice to pursue linux on SPARCs.
I'm guessing the major demand for a SPARC version of linux comes from people who have aquired old sun boxes and just want to fool around. These people don't purchase support.
But, keep in mind Linux != RedHat. RedHat may be considered the premier distro for companies who are looking for support from the vendor, but Debian, SuSE, et. al. are in many folks minds (and for many purposes) as good if not better than RH.
So, this is not a blow to Linux. If anything it should allow RH to put more effort into their x86 distro.
Re:I understand, but... (Score:2)
Which is precisely the reason they're dropping it. Of the small fraction of Sparc machines running Linux instead of Solaris or the ancient SunOS, I'd hazard a guess that most of those are old recycled hardware.
The open-source aspect of Linux is certainly nice given Sun's tendency to leave certain Solaris bugs unfixed year after year. But few people are going to buy new Sun equipment and reload it with an OS that makes mediocre use of the latest hardware.
No, I suspect Sparc Linux is what gets loaded on machines too old and underpowered to run the recent versions of Solaris well. Linux is a good way to get a modern, up-to-date *nix running on all those old 125 MHz Turbosparcs.
And if you're still updating 125 MHz Turbosparcs, you're probably not spending money on packaged OS media and support contracts.
For another thing, why run Linux on new Sun hardware? You're paying a premium for hardware that doesn't run optimally under Linux. Linux can't do SMP as well as Solaris, and you're giving up things like hot-swappable processor support and so forth. Next, you're using this fancy hardware to run what? Apache, MySQL and BIND? It would be nice to be able to run big, scary software like Oracle, DB2, Domino and WebSphere on that fast hardware, but none of those commercial apps are available for Sparc Linux.
Phooey. If you run Sparc Linux, you're unlikely to have been paying for support anyway. Why should RedHat pay people to build and tune Sparc versions of their distro? You're free to grab the RH7 sources and compile them yourself, or put together a team to do so, or switch to something like Debian, Mandrake or SuSE.
For an example of a low-demand OS's demise really disrupting things, consider OS/2's death, officially taking place in the summer of 2001. It may not be in wide use on desktops or even on network servers, but it's got a large market share in the voice-mail systems industry.
how can something with (Score:3)
Do you ever notice how everyone thinks their own needs are the most important?
Redhat is obviously not making any money from their sparc version, and is making the smart decision to drop it. If people were buying it, they would certainly keep producing it, it's a business decision, and a good one.
My question to the person submitting this article is, did you buy the sparc version, or did you download it?
________
Not a good fit for Sparc just yet anyway... (Score:2)
Solaris is well tuned to this sort of hardware environment, and the needs that produce demand for that kind of hardware. Linux still has some deficiencies in this area. Consider Linux's 1-1 thread/process model. Linus considers this to be a Good Thing(tm) and just wants to reduce the cost of a context switch as much as possible. Cetainly admirable but Solaris's 1-m thread/process model tends to be the Right Thing(tm) for this type of environment. Our MySQL server running on a Solaris E4500 is serving 4,500 active connections at any given moment during peak usage hours. It would probably need more but that's what we have our MAX_CONNECTIONS set to right now. We're considering upping that as high as 6,000 in the not too distant future.
Between the relatively high cost of a thread on Linux (in terms of spawning and context switching primarily -- I'm less concerned about the 16KB or so of overhead per thread since that's actually quite reasonable) and the remaining coarse-grained kernel locks, plus the somewhat flawed I/O in 2.2 (ladder-I/O starvation anyone?) Linux isn't quite ready to handle 8+ CPUs in a high demand environment just yet.
But even when Linux *does* get to that point (and it *is* getting there -- the kernel team is doing an incredible job with 2.4, and with companies like IBM helping out at the high-end they certainly have a lot of information at their disposal...) you must consider that usually Sparc hardware comes as a bundle with the software and support. This provides a strong disincentive to use Linux -- you've already paid for a generally excellent OS and top-notch support for it.
This tends to relegate Linux/Sparc to older castaway Sparc hardware which has the distinction of not being cost effective to keep up anymore. Performance vs. space and the cost of maintaining one more box (read: TCO) tend to make it cheaper to replace two of those old Sparc machines with 1 brand-new Intel machine.
Personally, I'm more interested to see Linux on IBM's NUMA-Q based machines with 64 processors... IBM is investing a HUGE amount of energy into making Linux *the* OS for such machines. *drool* (Yes, I'm aware that Linus thinks NUMA is fundamentally the Wrong Thing(tm)... It's still VERY fast though...
-JF
Who uses it? (Score:3)
And ONLY what large companies demand. Of those large companies using Linux, how many are using it on Sparc? Few to none, is my guess.
Furthermore, it's easy to see why. Linux on Intel is easy to install and find support on the Internet for. But I've done a few Linux on Alpha installs, and let me tell you that once you leave the warmth and light of the x86 world you are on your own. This isn't to say that AlphaLinux is no good--far from it. I like the hardware and the software. But the support is hard to come buy--if the mailing list doesn't respond or doesn't know you are pretty much toast. Sparc Linux, being even more rare is probably 10 times worse.
I'm sure to be marked as "flamebait" unless I include some examples, so here we are:
Installing on a Jensen.
Using MILO (I've read and re-read the howto and damned if I can figure it out)
The many many (many) patches and updates you need to install after getting a distro (say, RedHat) installed (system clock date to 2020, net-tools, etc).
Again, I'm not saying the above problems make Alpha Linux bad--I'm saying that the poor documentation of the above problems makes Alpha Linux scary.
--
A bit ironic... (Score:2)
I suppose this isn't the time to mention my own preference for Debian, which has supported sparc for a while and will continue to do so...
Commercial UNIX uptake (Score:2)
Yet, SUN are happy to gain news inches on the back of linux.
Looks like I'll have to move to debian or suse though...
and of course, if the sparc based machines have to move then my intel ones will have to follow.
Wonder What IBM Had to Do With That? (Score:3)
Re:Companies are using other platforms (Score:2)
*If* you really need Sparcs and *if* you can afford them, I don't see why you'd run Linux on them. Solaris seems to do just fine in that case!
Not that it wouldn't be fun, I'd just not do it myself (on producation machines at least).
And if you're just trying it for fun, you'd as well go through the hassle/fun of downloading/compiling it yourself anyway, why use Redhat?
Re:how can something with (Score:5)
Claiming they don't give free stuff back to the community is ridiculous. Though personally I prefer Debian to the Red Hat distribution, I am grateful for all the things that Red Hat has done for all of us.
Re:Of Course They Dropped It (Score:2)
Untrue.
If it were true, we wouldn't have GPLed our code and allowed others to simply copy Red Hat Linux and put their label on it.
Re:Of Course They Dropped It (Score:3)
After all, anything you can do on an expensive Sparc, you can do faster/better on an x86 at a lower cost.
I disagree with this type of statement when it comes to comparing just about any other architecture to x86 (and I've heard this kind of thing from countless x86-centric people). First off, contrary to popular belief, there are still uses for "big iron" in today's world. Understand this, not everything is a desktop-class system, and I haven't seen a good large-scale server come from Intel since they were first experimenting with their Hypercubes. Uses of big iron include data warehouses (which are big within larger corporations, mostly), scientific research, meteorological research/prediction, etc. For some of these uses, using Beowulf technology can work well using what Intel likes to refer to as "servers" as nodes (usually, these are just desktop or workstation motherboards with increased RAM capacity and a bit more cache), but in many cases, big iron is still the way to go. Ever try to bring up a 10TB data warehouse server under Linux using x86-class components? Good luck.
Compaq and Sun have MUCH more experience with large servers than almost any PC manufacturer. Unfortunately, in the case of Sun equipment, Solaris is the only choice if you need to get a large-scale system running in a very short time. Compaq (and partners) are improving Linux for their Alpha servers to make sure that it can handle such tasks. It may not seem too profitable to do this, especially since they produce a "competing" product in Tru64, but the marketing issues skew a bit when the hardware manufacturer is the same company as the primary OS manufacturer. To Compaq, selling hardware and support contracts on that hardware is #1, Tru64 is a close second, but offsetting R&D and fab costs on hardware is often much more difficult than it is to recover OS development costs. Unfortunately, Sun drops the ball in this regard. They have not given enough to the Linux community for them to entertain the same favour amongst the Sparc-Linux users as Compaq has with the Alpha-Linux users (granted, quite a few Alpha-Linux users still have tenuous relationships with Compaq, but it's not as bad as those with/against Sun). This is sad, but true. Had Sun been more forthcoming, both on an informational level as well as a pricing level, they could've enjoyed more success with Sparc-Linux. So, IMO, it has nothing to do, though, with the quality or speed of their hardware, though, that RedHat hasn't seen great numbers out of the Sparc releases. I mean, NOBODY can tell me that there aren't a ton of sparcs out there...
So now that we've established that Sun is partially to blame here, let's talk about RedHat's shortcomings in this situation and how it will affect the future of both their distribution and Linux in general. First off, I think that RedHat dropped the ball on this as well and could have enjoyed much more success with the sparc release than they did. Anyone that knows anything about the average Sparc customer knows one thing: they will not buy a server without a support contract on the hardware and the OS component...end of story, no discussion. After all, corporations are Sun's biggest customers and corporations not only cover their ass, but also the rest of their body with armour when they purchase something computer-related. Now, we all know how much crap RedHat has its hands in now (seems like every week, they're releasing PR about acquiring, agreeing with, or partnering with SOMEONE). I honestly think they've diversified too much for their own good, but that's neither here nor there. The point is, if they're going to work on/with all of these other companies, why not try to get in bed with Sun? A small contract and perhaps a small personnel exchange could've easily made a deal between the two that allowed Sun to only focus on Solaris, while deferring the Linux question to RedHat (which would allow it to be nurtured by someone other than Joe User). RedHat could also allow Sun to sell Linux support contracts on Sun equipment and just kick back some money to Sun for the administration involved in doing the sales (this kind of deal is made every single day in the IT industry...it's just contracting out for a support service). RedHat and Sun could've practically owned the Sparc OS market (sorry, BSD folks, you do count, but the research shows you're still in the vast minority).
This all should seem easy to come up with for any marketing person or corporate executive, and it really should be that easy (hell, I came up with it and I didn't even finish college), but let's face facts: non-x86 archs are practically shunned by the core Linux community, especially the corporate side of Linux. This is a shame because there are valid contributions that could be made to the kernel and the distributions by listening to the other-port folks. Sure, you don't find tons of large-scale servers in the hands of most kernel programmers, but there are people out there that have access to these systems and have valuable scalability issues that should be addressed by the Linux community as a whole. Also, I feel that Linux should present on a unified front and say collectively that "Linux doesn't equal x86-only". If you want to drive people and corporate software products away from other archs, treating ports the way that they are now is a good start.
Marketing and logistics are too often cited as being reasons for dropping ports like sparc, but I think that those issues are not to blame for the situation. The problem is that RedHat (in this case) is using traditional business models and isn't trying to forge new (additional) revenue streams. They seem to love jumping onto the hot issues of today (like embedded systems, etc), which are guaranteed money-makers, but won't attempt an alliance with a company like Sun for some reason. IMO, they should've done this before even releasing a sparc port. I mean, why release a product for a few cycles, then drop it? corporate image can be more important than income reports somtimes (ask IBM) and they're only serving to alienate the users of that port (many of whom are probably also x86 RedHat users). RedHat: do your research BEFORE releasing the port.
But, at any rate, don't be so quick to write off Sparc or any other non-x86 arch just because your applications run faster/cheaper on them. Obviously, there are customers for these other architectures and they buy them for a reason. Not everyone's problems can be solved on an x86. For many of the consumers in the non-x86 market, though, prices of software can be huge because it's over-and-above the higher cost of the hardware, which makes Linux a nice alternative for some of those folks. So, don't assume that practically nobody uses the sparc port (or any other) because the native OS is just too indiginous to be ousted. Besides, Linux is beginning to replace MS, who was the odds-on favourite for awhile simply because of their huge install base. But, until someone like RedHat seriously tries to make it profitable to support a port like Sparc, it won't happen. This is not Field of Dreams...if you build it, but don't advertise it, they won't come.
Personally, I'm kinda glad RedHat is slimming down their product offerings. I've watched the quality control drop drastically on non-x86 platform releases. Maybe now they can turn some attention towards improving the ones that they still support.
How unfortunate (Score:2)
Oh, by the way, I'm also a Windows NT administrator.
Too bad Red Hat dropped the ball.
Re:Companies are using other platforms (Score:2)
Geez people.... before you go on and on about the price of a SPARC machine... at least look at store.sun.com. A little more pricey than a PC but still not a horribly bad price.
Disappointing but unsurprising (Score:2)
Re:There's more to Linux than Redhat (Score:2)
On another note, if you are a large company buying sparcs, you are very doubtful going to put Linux on it. As a user maybe, but as a company it is not in your best interestes. Usually when you buy hardware that comes with an OS you get a warrenty. Sun is partcularly good (if you spent enough money) about giving you good support. I know I worked for a company that had then in every other week. Good contract we had.
I don't want a lot, I just want it all!
Flame away, I have a hose!
Re:Sun would love this (Score:3)
(2) Linux isnt the only kernel on the market that supports Sparc.
What about Debian? What about all the other Linux distros that run on sparc?
Both the NetBSD and OpenBSD ports to the Sparc architecture are quite good.
If you have a sparc, I would think you would be running something other than RedHat anyway.
Just my 2 cents.
Re:It isn't true. (Score:2)