IBM Calls Linux "Logical Successor" To AIX 316
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."
Cheaper is better (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Cheaper is better (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Cheaper is better (Score:4, Interesting)
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?
Brilliant idea... (Score:2, Interesting)
Absolutely. I actually LIKE Notes. It's what LookOut should be but isn't. I use it at work. Maybe if there was a Linux client I could persuade someone to try out Linux as an alternative OS here. Then again, this is a big company and they LOVE Microsoft here.
Re:Brilliant idea... (Score:3)
and creating terminal server installs is a royal pain: you have to copy a gazillion files and icons(!!) to a personal area for EACH user, AND make sure their notes.id file is there, before the user can do anything. Granted, this just takes a well written login script to do it once per user, but it wastes disk space and time. And if your notes.id file has to be read over a (usually unencrypted) network, I question how much extra security it buys you.
anyway, notes is ok, and is pretty cool if you have a notes programmer making it sing and dance for you. but the client admin interface needs a little help.
Unix (Score:2, Interesting)
Also dont they have a mjority stakholding in SuSE practically the only distrobution you cant download iso for?
Re:Unix (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Unix (Score:2)
Why did Sun promote Java? They wanted software that could run on Solaris as well as windows. Every piece of windows software is a Sun machine not bought.
Why did IBM first produce RBMDS? They had these things called mainframes and realised that if they offered a RDBMS people would buy mainframes. People will buy hardware to run a RDBMS, these is a machine made by IBM that is soley a RDBMS machine, everything that runs on it uses the DB.
What does One & Tivoli do? They allow management of machines, directly and indirectly. Who's machines? If you buy these products which machines are you more likely to buy?
The software products are important, but neither company has a software division, the software is attached to a server line.
The True Value of Open Source (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
Um, you can't download this [linuxiso.org]?
Reading Comprehension 101: "live-eval" (Score:2)
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.
Re:Unix (Score:3, Informative)
You are incorrect, sir. You can, in fact, download the entire SuSE distribution fileset from their FTP site. All 5-odd gigabytes worth of it for every version. What you can not do, however, is download recent ISO images of their distribution. You are perfectly free to download the entire distribution and network-install it to your heart's content.
Go here [suse.com] if you're still not sure. If you'd prefer, you could use one of their FTP mirror sites [suse.com] located all over the world.
If you poke around, you'll find the RPMs for all binary packages as well as the sources of every (license permitting) package in their entire distribution. I count 2,072 source RPM packages.
For the record, up until the 7.0 release, SuSE always had downloadable, installable (not "live") ISOs of every release. Sometimes it came out later than their retail version, but it was always there, and I've got about six burned versions (up-to and including 7.0) to prove it.
IBM has a sneaky approach... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:IBM has a sneaky approach... (Score:5, Informative)
"Milk" implies that they don't contribute their share and from watching linux-kernel I can tell you thier engineers are responsable for many of the scaleabillity improvments added so far during the 2.5.x development cycle.
That is a crying shame (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:That is a crying shame (Score:3, Interesting)
I use AIX all the time. To me it is just another UNIX system.
Re:That is a crying shame (Score:5, Informative)
This just off the top of my head. Most of these features like the the JFS/LVM stuff has been there for years.
Re:That is a crying shame (Score:2)
You miss the point of this (Score:5, Insightful)
IBM is merely reinforcing their already rock solid commitment.
Re:HUH??? (Score:5, Insightful)
I applaud IBM for realizing AIX had it's chance and won't be a dominant player inteh OS field. They'll roll that AIX expertise and technology into Linux and the whole Unix world, IBM included, will be better off for it.
A bizzilion and one gadgets (Score:3, Insightful)
You get the picture. More importantly there are cool features to the kernel that IBM hasn't worked on. Take the XFS filesystem. AIX isn't known for its great multi-media support and nobody at IBM has really considered the issue of how you move gigabyte sized files quickly through the system. SGI on the other hand has worked a great deal on that issue. On the other hand nobody at SGI has worked on the issue of managing the greatest number of boxes with very untrained system administrators.
IBM itself cannot compete with Microsoft. IBM + SGI + german government + FSF + KDE group +... can compete with Microsoft.
Frankly I think they should open source as much of AIX as they can today and get the community to help them port things their management tools ASAP.
Re:HUH??? (Score:3, Insightful)
I mean, to bring LINUX up to AIX's level of functionality will require that IBM re-implement, and retest all that code. It's almost like starting over from scratch.
Well, first of all, they don't have to maintain a whole Linux distribution (even if they would have to, it's not that expensive), just the features they are interested in.
Currently IBM maintains 4 different server lines: Linux and Windows servers on x86, AIX servers on PPC and Linux-OS/390 mainframes and Linux is the only OS that runs on all of them.
Without Linux, IBM can't even offer their customers an upgrade path. What if the x86 server doesn't cut it anymore? Throw everything out and implement a mainframe solution? The upgrade path without Linux would be: Windows -> AIX -> OS/390. See how ridiculous that is?
IBM has realized that Linux makes the life easier for everybody - their customers *and* IBM.
I mean, AIX does do everything LINUX does right? Am I missing something?
Yes, you miss tons of software on Linux that doesn't run on AIX (sure porting to AIX would be possible, but that takes time). AIX is so rare that even mainstream free software is usually NOT available for it.
You miss that you can find a Linux-expert very easily compared to an AIX expert.
You miss that Linux makes it possible to develop and test on cheap x86 systems and only use the expensive mainframe for one final test and production use.
Re:That is a crying shame (Score:2, Interesting)
Buy-in from customer base needed... (Score:4, Informative)
I think the only things holding back Linux from replacing AIX are:
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)
Re:Buy-in from customer base needed... (Score:2)
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.)?
Re:Buy-in from customer base needed... (Score:5, Informative)
Some good info about specific kernel changes can be found in the DCL Road Map [osdl.org].
OSDL has been *great* with regard to bringing companies and kernel hackers together on this subject. Gathering specs, performing QA, and allowing use of hardware. I had talked with Timothy Witham at Linux World [linuxworldexpo.com] about database performance, and he said he's seeing dramatic speed improvements on a 2.5 kernel over 2.4 (20%->30%, using standard TPC benchmarks). Though I don't remember the database he was using (not MySQL or Postgres, but it was open source I believe).
Re:Buy-in from customer base needed... (Score:2)
Re:Buy-in from customer base needed... (Score:2)
Imagine that there is no such term as "scheduled maintenance".
Scalability (Score:2)
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.
Re:Buy-in from customer base needed... (Score:2)
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.
Re:Buy-in from customer base needed... (Score:2)
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)
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..)
Re:But what of the AIX customers? (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Ahhh, we'll do what we always do... (Score:2)
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)
10 years ago... people would ask
5 years ago
2-3 years ago
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.
Re:Well on the other hand, (Score:3, Informative)
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)
I dunno, I think the first couple of INXS albums rock harder than any Linux distribution ever could.
Re:INXS (Score:2)
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?
Re:Well on the other hand, (Score:2, Insightful)
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)
Whoa!! Look at Kernel Traffic's [zork.net] top 10 LKML posters from _this_ week:
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!
Re:Well on the other hand, (Score:2, Insightful)
Define "hardly anyone". 1998 was when clients of mine, including some pure Windows shops, started installing Linux to run things like CVS, or special-purpose web servers, or just to experiment. People in Unix environments were pretty aware of it - often mainly as a threat, or something to be dismissed as not as good as BSD or Solaris. You're just extrapolating from your own limited experience.
It is only very recently - in the last six months or so - that people have moved on to the "I know it's good" stage.
"People"? You just haven't been paying attention If you read the trade mags that PHBs like to subscribe to, like Infoworld or Computerworld, you've been deluged with articles about Linux for at least a few years now. Some of them might say things like "is it ready for x", but more of them say "ABC Corp used it successfully and saved $XXX". If you want a list of such articles in the mainstream computer press, just search Slashdot - many of them were linked to from here.
The really important stage is yet to come - that's when organisations that are still running Microsoft are looked down upon as being out of date. That's my prediction for about 3-4 years time.
Whatever you do, don't quit your day job to become a pundit...
AIX is dead (Score:3, Interesting)
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)
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)
Re:But for how long? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:But for how long? (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re:But for how long? (Score:2)
Re:But for how long? (Score:2)
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)
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)
Re:Not quite what it seems... (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
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)
IBM supports Linux on the AS/400, but equally supports OS400.
Re:OS400 (Score:3, Interesting)
porting software (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Actually... (Score:2)
An obvious choice, when you think about it. (Score:2, Interesting)
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)
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_f
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.
Re:No mystery in IBM's interest (Score:2)
Linux eating up its parents (Score:2, Interesting)
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...
Re:Linux eating up its parents (Score:2)
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).
Re:Linux eating up its parents (Score:2)
I can't really see how Linux will fall over if the other *nixes die out, are you saying that people will stop developing? I doubt that very much.
Linux replacing AIX..... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Linux replacing AIX..... (Score:4, Funny)
Here's hoping those batteries work better than the laptop ones do.... =)
Re:Linux replacing AIX..... (Score:2)
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)
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
Re:Linux is what IBM really wanted... (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
1. Sell Linux 2. ??? 3. Profit!! (Score:2)
it's a long range plan (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
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!!
Nice sentiment _but_... (Score:2, Funny)
Not that I necessarily include the ODM or SMIT in that list
Seriously, heavy-duty GPL'd LVM, braindead plug-n-play (cfgmgr anyone?
Incidentally, is there FBCON/ESCON support in the Linux kernel? I haven't booted a Linux box in a little while to check
Linux acronym (Score:2)
It makes perfect sense (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
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)
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.
Re:The real issue in Linux vs. other UNIX OSes... (Score:3, Insightful)
True, but if you focus solely on the Linux kernel then Linux truly is becoming a best-of-breed UNIX. O(1) scheduler. Real time scheduling. Low latency interrupt handlers. Pervasive zero-copy. High speed, standards compliant, feature rich TCP/IP stack. 1-on-1 thread model on the horizon! Reasonable mid-range SMP support. High capacity and high performance filesystems. Fine grained capabilities. Dynamic device numbering. And everything is fast Fast FAST. Linux has the fastest context switches of any UNIX.
I've been using Solaris since when it was called SunOS. My home computer is an Ultra-2. I do Solaris contracting in my home city. I'm not certified but I could get 95%+ on Solaris Admin Exam 1 and 2 without batting an eyelid. My current contract involves Solaris packaging and administration. But I'm still a Linux fanboy. I honestly think Linux has the potential to be better than every other UNIX. It can't do all of the high-end things yet, but I've no doubt that Linux will soon outpace the "big boys" of UNIX. Especially with IBM and SGI and SUN behind it.
Crucial part of the article (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:But... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you are badly mistaken about the role that IBM wants to take with Linux. They aren't interested in putting Linux on the desktop for the same reasons they never put AIX on the desktop. For them (and for most people) its a server OS.
I agree it would be nice for them to push it on the desktop as well, but saying they don't support it just because that isn't the role they are taking with it is irresponsible.
Re:But... (Score:5, Funny)
They aren't interested in putting Linux on the desktop for the same reasons they never put AIX on the desktop.
Crap. I better ditch my 400MHz Power3+ RS/6000 then. Since it's a server, I should certainly not be using it daily as my desktop. Damn shame to have the fast, pretty graphics card in it.
Re:But... (Score:2, Insightful)
You might have been fooled when you bought it, cause it seems that you got a workstation rather than a desktop...
Yes I know that the differences today are small, after the Intel processors getting faster and faster, but I do belive that there is some differences between my Ultra 10 and a high end Dell Pc. The Sun station is slower in speed but can do certain tasks better at the end of the day. Therefore I think that the different words for desktops and workstations still are valid.
Re:But... (Score:3, Informative)
Actually IBM did put AIX on the desktop in the form of RT-PC [ic.ac.uk]. In fact the AIX first appeared on the desktop before on a server,
Re:But Smaller Is Better... (Score:2, Interesting)
We all know that mainframes are getting smaller and smaller, it's just a matter of a few years before they end up being the size of laptops... Linux is a very logical step for a small desktop "mainframe" and/or server. Using Linux as the OS on both would just make connectivity and streamlined installs and upgrades that much easier since all would work using the same OS.
another linux distro ? (Score:2)
great, another distro. I think IBM just has to continue making
Re:But... (Score:5, Insightful)
What about the many, many people IBM donates to work on strategic open source initiatives.
What about nearly every IBM application running on Linux.
What about nearly every piece of IBM hardware running linux.
What about billions of dollars of services contracts to push the kernel's and distributions's limits, as well as keep places like Red Hat and SuSE alive with big fat checks from service contract customers buying their wares.
And what about the fact that just by saying 'linux is the future' IBM is making linux the future in the minds of a lot of people.
Re: But... (Score:3, Insightful)
This seems like pretty good support to me.
IBM needs to use all the programmers who formerly worked on OS2/AIX to make a user friendly Linux distro
Why should they do this? They make money from selling Linux servers and supporting them. Anyway, IMO Linux is already user freindly.
For the UMPTEENTH time. (Score:5, Insightful)
They are about embracing, and extending current technologies. This includes supporting Red Hat AND SUSE (heaven forbid they work with more than one linux distro)
And, for the UMPTEENTH time, IBM IS NOT OUT TO WIN LINUX ON THE DESKTOP. Last I checked, there aren't very many people out there running AIX on a Thinkpad, or a Desktop machine.
IBM is focused on the SERVER market with Linux, not the desktop market. There isn't a desktop market for linux at this time.
They've done NOTHING? (Score:3, Insightful)
IBM has contributed a lot of resources (people and money) to the Linux cause. They've done research into putting Linux on small devices (such as those nifty watches), and on large mainframe-type systems. They've contributed code to many Linux-related Open Source projects, as well as to the Linux kernel itself.
Oh, and they even sell ThinkPad laptops pre-configured to run RedHat. Who else does that? Precious few hardware vendors, that's who.
Yep, smells like flame-bait to me.
Re:HEY! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Big Blue may not be good for Linux... (Score:2)
Re:Big Blue may not be good for Linux... (Score:5, Informative)
So far, he's refused an absolutely huge patch from an IBM team, there were two competing implementations and the IBM team lost out (LVM?). Anyway, the team acted with dignity and honour, and got to work immediately with helping the other team. So - they have no history of this whatosever wrt to Linux.
Anyway, the moment there was a patent problem with the kernel, there'd be a non-infringing implementation in within seconds.
Re:Why X? (Score:2)
Re:Why X? (Score:4, Interesting)
First, let me point you towards Wikipedia's history of Unix [wikipedia.org]
Also, I found this on Usenet, hopefully it will give you a good idea on the background of Unix:
And finally, correct me if I am wrong, but it is assumed that Linux gets it's name because it is the brainchild of Linus Torvalds
Re:Why X? (Score:3, Informative)
It's actually pretty in-depth and I found it interesting at least.
It also discuss how the B language (first letter in BCPL; the basis for B) evolved into C, and some of the obstacles they met when creating "The bext B" that became C, the idea of Unix pipes, a discussion of the syntax of Unix commands,
It proceeds into discussing the Unix "wars" between Sun and AT&T, the creation of the Open Software Foundation, etc.
Some quotes:
"Like another legendary creature whose name also ends in 'x,' UNIX rose from the ashes of a multi-organizational effort in the early 1960s to develop a dependable timesharing operating system."
"He [Ken Thompson] put pipes into UNIX, he put this notation into shell, all in one night," McElroy said in wonder.
"Thirty years after its creation, UNIX still remains a phenomenon," Ritchie marveled.
Re:Why X? (Score:3, Informative)
That's true. Linus didn't really call it anything at first, but when he wanted to upload it to a BBS to share it out, he needed a name. He came up with "Freax" ("Free UNIX", sorta). The BBS sysop didn't like that name, and changed the name to "Linux" ("Linus's UNIX", sorta). Linux was the one that stuck... nobody really liked Freax (not even Linus).
steveha
Re:Why X? (Score:5, Interesting)
Multics is really to operating systems what Algol was to programming languages, the huge research project where they found a lot of the do's and dont's in operating system design. A great system all in all, a bit too ahead of its time though.
See http://www.wagoneers.com/UNIX/City-U/Multics/ for more information.
Re:Why X? (Score:2, Informative)
P - portable
O - operating
S - system
I - interface
X - all proper OS's end in X
Heh.
Re:My take on it... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:My take on it... (Score:3)
Re:Linux on IBM (Score:2)
Now, they could use Linux to make PPC systems viable on the desktop, but that battle still has to be won in general. This, nor Linux on laptops aren't going to be mainstream next week, but we can still hope. IBM's endorsment means a lot for corporate adoption. Nobody can make noise about lack of support, you can buy IBM hardware and they will support it.