Red Hat, HP, Intel Join in Itanium Linux Alliance 131
joel_archer writes "According to this Yahoo! article, Red Hat will begin selling an Itanium version of its Advanced Server Linux in partnership with HP. This is one of partnerships currently underway between these two companies. HP is a key partner for anything Itanium-related, the company invented the design underlying Itanium before handing it off to Intel to develop and manufacture. Bolstering that effort, Red Hat and HP have signed a deal under which Advanced Server will be certified on and available with all of HP's Intel-based ProLiant servers--not just Itanium systems, but also lower-end Xeon and Pentium versions and superthin 'blade' systems."
Proliant Servers (Score:1)
I hope that since HP now owns Compaq, the Proliant will become a better machine than when it was strictly Compaq. (If fact I hope all Compaqs are better...)
</rant>
Are you on crack? (Score:2, Interesting)
I have installed countless proliant servers and they are very high quality boxes.
Re:Are you on crack? (Score:2)
I think the big win in this article is not Red Hat on Itanium, but rather having Linux available directly from the manufacturer on the Proliant line. There's a lot of people that will feel a lot better now that they can get HP backing both the hardware and the software on their brand new (expensive) server. Plus, it gives us something to bring to management ("HP is offering it, it must be good"), etc.
Re:Are you on crack? (Score:1)
I certainly hope you're not implying that Compaq is the only vendor that offers hot-pluggable PCI slots, because that would simply be a ludicrous implication.
Re:Are you on crack? (Score:2)
Re:Proliant Servers (Score:2)
sure.... but why? (Score:2, Redundant)
Re:sure.... but why? (Score:1)
Re:sure.... but why? (Score:1)
Re:sure.... but why? (Score:2, Funny)
"640K should be enough for anyone." --Bill Gates
linkage [interesting-people.org]
theres nothing wrong with that quote... (Score:2)
Same with that guy who said there was only a market for 10 computers in the entire world. At that point in time, it was fairly accurate.
Re:theres nothing wrong with that quote... (Score:2)
Re:theres nothing wrong with that quote... (Score:1)
Re:sure.... but why? (Score:2, Informative)
No! That makes me so mad I can't believe it! Do you realize the pain the industry went through while the IBM PC was limited to 640K? The machine was going to be 512K at one point, and we kept pushing it up. I never said that statement-I said the opposite of that.
Looks like your link mentions another of his denials, too, but you should have mentioned the apocryphality (is that a word?) of the quote.
Re:sure.... but why? (Score:2)
Re:sure.... but why? (Score:1)
64-bit desktop systems (Score:2)
what 64bit's gives you far more than bigger numbers, you should also get an architecture change, otherwise no-one would be bothering to develop 64bit systems, most markets that require that kind of pression are fairly well saturated.
In your example the only real problem with 16bit systems is memory addressing limit, so why didn't intel make a 16 bit processor with 32bit addressing registers? it's far easier than making a 32bit processor.
Re:64-bit desktop systems (Score:2)
Re:sure.... but why? (Score:1)
Re:sure.... but why? (Score:1)
register width and address space have nothing to do with load. also, only poorly written s/w doesn't run on 64bit archs. all but of few debian packages run flawlessly. 64bit cpus have been around for about ten years now.
the main advantage of 64bits is the address space. no more trying to cram physical ram, io space, and kernel mappings into 4gigs. 64bit int ops are obviously a lot faster. the big win with that is, you can have 64bit file and sector offsets w/o slowing things down.
Re:sure.... but why? (Score:1)
Here's a few reasons why you're wrong (Score:2)
time_t this happy 32 bit little time value is ubiquiteous accross all platforms and is also broken after 2038. Switching to a 64 bit version makes the problem go away.
32 bits starts to get a lot smaller when you're dealing with signed values. ~2billion isn't that big a number for a lot of computations.
In short, switching to 64bit will solve a lot of little niggly programming problems for free.
Operating systems with standardized ways of writing software will probably make the transition fairly seemlessly (UNIX: already available). Operating systems with rampant use of hard coded 32bit values (DWORD) for handling pointers and system resources will have a more painful transition (Windows: delayed).
Re:sure.... but why? (Score:1)
Why? b/c Java, XML, 3D, AI, RAM (Score:1)
XML (especially DOM) is another way to get all my resources utilized. Although it takes it for good reasons.
Photoshop was another big demander of 32-bit. With 3D animation studios 64-bit will be a much better choice.
Also I expect a new wave (generation) of AI applications: in games, in financial applications and in search engines. And probably in speech interface.
Finally, it's not far away I will have 32GB of RAM on my home server. 32-bit is not good to access it :)
Re:sure.... but why? (Score:2)
Re:sure.... but why? (Score:1)
Re:sure.... but why? (Score:1)
Windows NT uses 2GB for the kernel address space and 2GB VM for process space. they made this 3GB for process space, and 2GB for kernel in Advanced server, some preocesses were choking out.
HP starting to follow IBM's lead? (Score:4, Insightful)
This sounds very similar to IBM's linux on all IBM "backend server" offerings. You have to remember, these will be all of what used to be the offerings of both HP and Compaq when considering the market scope of this.
BTW - Oracle just matched BEA System's price/performance record for the java application server benchmark. Oracle ran with an all Linux solution on HP Proliant hardware.
HP is pulling an IBM...how interesting.
-Pete
Re:HP starting to follow IBM's lead? (Score:2)
Good God, but I *love* compitition.
I thought Oracle wouldn't let you publish this! (Score:2)
I thought Oracle's licensing doesn't allow you to publish the results of such tests... well, I'm sure they don't mind if Oracle comes out the winner...
Enthusiasm for Opteron (Score:2, Funny)
finally (Score:3, Funny)
Re:finally (Score:1)
Re:finally (Score:1)
http://news.com.com/2100-1001-937414.html?tag=fd_
The deal with Reuters is a good start.
Re:finally (Score:2)
Wintel: a few years across a very small part of their market.
Companies like Sun and SGI will be able to use arguments about maturity and experience for a while, because the arguments are simply true. However, after a few more years, the 64-bit market will become very interesting with lots of competition from Intel, as long as Itanium doesn't become the Itanic. Personally, I really want companies like Sun and SGI to be successful (their hardware is awesome), but I fear that commoditization of 64-bit computers will take its toll.
What first-order things will traditional 64-bit computer makers compete on? 64-bit address space? No. Raw CPU speed? Probably not.
Instead, they will have to find new ways to differentiate themselves. For example, Sun continues to integrate more reliability and availability features into their servers. Unfortunately, it is harder to communicate to the "masses" that such features even exist, because the "masses" are still stuck on the first-order things: speed and address space. Eventually, I think the 64-bit market will become like today's 32-bit market with 64-bit "Cheap Crap"-brand wintel servers dominating over more worthwhile, but more expensive, 64-bit servers from Sun, et. al.
Re:finally (Score:2)
Intel have the worst design in terms of cost but this is offset by their buckload's of money and moveing production lines to a
(also getting SA1110 so that they can run that on the old ones and keep them profitable)
AMD has got out of the game partnering with UMC
SUN used TI and fujitsu and fujitsu are out of the game now
HPaq use Intel and are out of the game
SGI use TSMC now......
IBM are so ahead of the game it's scary just as well they only intrested in Power (-;
Moto are long since dead and are useing TSMC
so it comes down to....
Intel vs IBM
and maybe SGI & AMD depending on how things work out
so in terms of what counts its the northbridge and CA seems to have done well custermising Intels referance IA64 northbridge to handle 128 procs HP has done its own and thats whats going into that big Linux machine they sold
oh yeah
Redhat layed of a bunch of people today dont see that in the news
regards
John Jones
Re:finally (Score:1)
Lintel: Not part of the market (yet)
Hey, did I just coin a new word, or is 'Lintel' an old one?
Re:finally (Score:1)
when UNIX got 64-bits (Score:2, Informative)
Actually, it's a lot less than a decade for most UNIX vendors.
DEC had 64-bits first; 1992/1993 I believe, with SGI not too long afterwards. So the two guys with lowest marketshare were pretty fast out of the blocks. But where were things a few years ago? By late 1998, all the RISC vendors had at least one 64-bit piece of hardware, with half of Sun and HP's product lines moved over, IBM just starting, and SGI shipping all 64-bit hardware. But various players hadn't finished all the OS-level stuff to support that. (Source for all that here. [osdata.com]) The transition to 64-bits wasn't done for UNIX players even 3.5 years ago, so "across their whole market" is really way too strong a statement. Wintel ran on 64-bit Alpha support long ago, but actual 64-bit APIs were still in development back in that timeframe; I haven't seen how far along they are now.
At one point in my career, I analyzed 64 bit marketing for several projects. Basically, saying "we're 64-bit, they aren't" was never a very compelling argument to begin with. Sure, in a few cases (very large databases, but not very very large databases) it made a difference, but at the end of the day, it didn't win any hardware players a lot of business.
Saying "64-bit is better" is easy, showing that 64-bit is worth paying more money is typically hard.
You're right that 64-bit Intel will likely win over 64-bit RISC long-term is right. But Intel is having huge problems executing on 64-bit Intel stuff. Itanium was a loser. We'll see how competitive McKinley is.
Right now, and I suspect for some time to come, Sun and SGI will continue to sell better hardware primarily based on "more reliable", "more scalable" kinds of features within the hardware (as usual, features requiring OS support), not leaning too heavily on the 64-bit argument.
--LP
Re:finally (Score:1)
What, pray tell, does "Win-tel" have to do with Red Hat Linux Advanced Server? Wintel [Microsoft Windows on the Intel platform] isn't typically a Linux platform unless a virtual machine technology is utilized, so please enlighten us as to your point.
For one who doesn't mean to troll, you certainly manage to do somewhat of a satisfactory job of it.
Re:finally (Score:2)
Re:finally (Score:2)
Re:finally (Score:2)
commercial unix=made by corporations for corporations.
The problem with Linux is that its made by hackers and most of them own 32 bit machines so guess which platform it peforms better on? Hmm I guess 32 bit x86 or the powerpc platform. Sure they are a tiny few who own an alpha but the move from 32 bit to 64 bit wont bring any performance enhancments for most desktop apps. The alpha port of linux from what I heard is the least stable and has the worst optimization from the gcc compiler. At least this was the case several years ago so I don't know if the compiler has been fixed but you get the picture here about linux vs unix.
Corporations who develop Unix have the money to pay for nice 64 bit servers for development and testing and can tell a programmer to do this and do that to make sure everything is 64-bit ready for server use. Hackers out of there own budgets do not. However sun's cheap ultra-100 box is a start for consumer affordable 64-bit workstations.
Unless more interest is given for 64-bit applications from the gnu c compiler team as well as kernel hackers, unix will stay ahead of linux in the server arena. Advanced server for itanium is a start in the right direction since Linux has got alot better and since redhat can pay for 64-bit testing and development.
We've had one of these for about six months now... (Score:2, Informative)
Is this old news? (Score:4, Interesting)
http://www.mandrakelinux.com/en/ftptmp/1024501320. d32fd091334bd166624816e3d84d319a.php#others [mandrakelinux.com]
It looks like HP, Intel, and RedHat have been in the mix since 1999.
http://sverre.home.cern.ch/sverre/Linux_IA64_proje ct.html [home.cern.ch]
Redhat increasing profit margins (Score:2)
Redhat is using this partnership to increase their revenues and clean up their profit margin according to this article [theregister.co.uk] on the Register, which coincides with this Yahoo News item.
Redhat may or may not be your favorite distro, but at least they're doing something to increase Linux marketshare, and apparently are doing it successfully.
This should be good.. (Score:1)
Re:This should be good.. (Score:1)
Is it just me..... (Score:1)
But then again, this deal is what a lot of Liunux companies want, is to make money on superior technical expertise, not on super expensive software that is not free(as in speech).
Re:Is it just me..... (Score:1)
Re:Is it just me..... (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Is it just me..... (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not sure that RedHat was ever there. The good thing about RedHat is that they do seem committed to Open Source i.e. they actively participate in contributing to many GPL projects and don't keep anything closed. As long as they continue to do this I don't really care who they collaborate with.
Re:Is it just me..... (Score:4, Interesting)
RedHat still releases the software they write under the GPL, and their software is still widely available for "free." RedHat has put their money where there mouth is and is making good on their claim to charge for support and not for software. RedHat has seeded the business community with high quality Free Software, and is now reaping the benefits of their work as business start using this software and (more importantly) start paying for support.
Anyone who links Linux with some sort of lame counter-culture anti-business meme is just being soft headed. RedHat gives away software because it makes business sense to do so, plain and simple.
Re:Is it just me..... (Score:2)
Actually the software industry has become more and more treacherous in the last couple of years, especially for startups. For years the basic plan has been to develop a technology and hope you get bought out by Microsoft or one of Microsoft's competitors instead of simply destroyed.
RedHat has made a business of undercutting it's commercial software competitors by creating a atmosphere for collaborative software development and by packaging and supporting the results. This unorthodox method of competing has scored them some impressive wins, and it is gaining them both market share and revenue.
Contrast this with what would have happened had they decided to try and compete with a commercial product. Chances are they would end up like BeOS.
Re:Is it just me..... (Score:1)
Sheesh, if and when they finally dump that RPM crap I might actually use it some day.
.
Goodbye United Linux (Score:1)
I'd like to hear some discussion about this point; it seems to me that while us nerds like the Many Flavors Of *NIX, the Suits want One Thing to manage, which from a business standpoint seems to make a lot of sense.
So, feel free to disagree, or mod me down, or whatever.
Re:Goodbye United Linux (Score:4, Interesting)
How is gcc for itanium? (Score:1, Interesting)
I haven't really heard much about Itanium, and had assumed this meant it was dying, because unless people compiled to Itanium it wasn't using its full potential. However, this Itanium Linux thing is a very, very good sign for Intel; even if Windows NT may not be at fullspeed for Itanium, that's ok, because we can have Linux distributions where all new software is compiled targeted & optimised for the difficult Itanium instruction set. This was, i thought, always one of the great underused advantages of open source software-- it makes hardware platform irrelivant-- and why i'm glad to see things like Gentoo emerging. (Err.. the pun was not intentional. Sorry.)
However, though, i must ask: How well is GCC doing insofar as itanium specialization goes? Last i checked, there was a hyperoptimized intel compiler, but not a lot of people were using it because it wasn't integrated with anything else. Is this still the case? Is gcc up to speed with the intel benchmark compilers, as far as optimizations go? And if not, is it possible for a linux distro like this to use `intelpropeitarybs` in place of `gcc`? Is there work still to be done?
If i download something off freshmeat and
HP Linux has its own Itanium compiler (Score:2, Interesting)
Oh killer cool (Score:2)
E| b3 D3 L337357 R007 of all baby! 8^)
Re:Debian? (Score:2)
Well, there are a number of factors that are misleading here. Unfortunately a lot of people don't get the real picture. Here are some useful things to know about Debian and HP.
1. Debian's current "Project Leader" is now Bdale Garbee, who works for HP, making sure that Debian (and the Linux Kernel) runs quite happily on the IA64 platform. Most of Bdale's changes have gone back upstream to developers, and have since filtered down to RedHat. I would not be surprised if RedHat actively watches Bdale's code changes to speed this process up. A number of other HP employees work on Debian, and in some cases, were hired by HP after already starting work on Debian.
2. Woody is the only version of Debian that will work properly on IA64, and for the IA64 architechure it uses a 2.4 series kernel. If you haven't used Woody, or used the installer, don't even bother to comment.
3. HP provide a "base system" installed on their machines. They also provide a software loader, that allows you to "choose" what version of Linux is installed. This then copies a pre-installed copy of the chosen OS over the existing system. At least on IA64, the distributions that were going to be bundled were: Debian, RedHat, Suse, Mandrake. The reason I say were, is that I last heard about this directly from Bdale at LCA 2002 (Brisbane, Australia) and there is this whole United Linux thing that may have changed what will happen with Suse somewhat.
4. HP has put it's money where it's mouth is concerning Debian. A number of HP IA64 and HPPA machines have been GIVEN to the Debian community to use as development systems and package builders. They also paid the legal bill to find out just where the legal stance is on having crypto software directly in the main archive.
5. If you want to see JUST how many packages work under Debian (particularly in reference to the IA64 architecture), you should probably look at the Debian Builder Statistics [debian.org] page. Approximately 94% of all of packages in Woody build on IA64. There is over 8000 packages in Debian Woody.
6. Interestingly in reference to your "support" comment, perhaps you may not know that Debian's package update for the recent Apache "Chunked Transfer Encoding" vunerability was released by the security team recently. The update message I recieved from the Apache announce list and the Debian security mailing list (both announcing fixes for the bug) were within 90 minutes of each other, and in both cases files were on the mirrors at the time the notification was released. I personally think this is pretty efficient.
I use Debian in my workplace. It works very well for us. We used to use RedHat and it caused us lots of problems, particularly with upgrading and maintenance, but also when it came to configuration. This is my personal opinion, but I believe my reasons of choice are valid. YMMV.
HP would have done better to complete EV8 (Score:2)
Rather that slash and burn Alpha, HP would have made all of its customers far more happy by agreeing to take EV8 to silicon. I'm sure this was in the realm of the possible.
Yes, cross-license with Intel up the wazoo and sell your employees to Intel if you like, but deliver to your customers what they need to keep their datacenters for the next decade, and also bring a stunning and seminal SMT product to market.
While we're on the subject, unifying HP-UX and Tru64 into a "TruHP" might have scored a few notches on the cluestick. Let's face it: a lot of things about HP-UX just plain suck (especially the packaging system, as Tru64 announced it was moving to RPM). HP is just beginning to implement dynamic kernel tunables and even their whole enterprise file system is outsourced. I am totally underwhelmed. When they lose the performance edge, I will have no sentimental attachment to this kludge.
Just like IBM and Sequent, HP has knifed products that work for products that don't. May Opteron be the undoing of you all.
Re:HP would have done better to complete EV8 (Score:1)
Re:HP would have done better to complete EV8 (Score:1)
Re:HP would have done better to complete EV8 (Score:1)
Good! (Score:2, Interesting)
Maybe now my shares of RHAT will actually gain some value! :-) Red Hat has been making a lot of critical partnerships like this recently.
Say what you will able Red Hat vs. other Linux distributions - it is the partnerships and support of other Enterprise-sized vendors that is going to make or break Linux. Being that Red Hat is smart enough to make these partnerships, my money is on them to be "the" premier Linux vendor for the corporate market.
Take care,
Brian
--
100% Linux Web Hosting Solutions [assortedinternet.com]
--
Intel's problem (Score:1)
SuSE not in there? They were first on Itanium! (Score:2)
Funny to see how SuSE [suse.com] is not part of that alliance. They were the first to ship an Itanium distribution, back in June 2001 [www.suse.de]!
Re:SuSE not in there? They were first on Itanium! (Score:1)
Re:SuSE not in there? They were first on Itanium! (Score:1)
Though I don't know if these were actually up and running, or on the simulator. I'm just not checking out Itanium stuff, for FP speed.
Will HP ship Red Hat with their Itanium boxes? (Score:2, Interesting)
Have a look here [hp.com] if you don't believe me - this means you have to fork out [redhat.com] $495 (yes, you read that right) for Red Hat Linux on an HP Itanium box compared to nothing extra for XP, HP-UX or indeed other Linuxes (Mandrake, Debian and SuSE all seem to have ISOs for Itanium available).
Surely HP must now resume shipping Red Hat Linux with their Itanium boxes [they did used to ship RH with the boxes until quite recently] ? Or is $495 considered peanuts compared to the cost of the boxes ?
Re:I AM FED UP ! (Score:1)
how about alpha ? (Score:1)
HP didn't "hand off" anything. (Score:2)
HewPaq is no longer a frontline R&D organization, it's a computer kitbuilder.
--Blair
"Not that there's anything wrong with that."
Good God - HP Proliant?? (Score:1)
i guess this is the beginning of commercial linux (Score:1)
the beginning of the free distributed linux's end
lets take a closer look at redhat.
they make it more human, (this is the way they discribe latest gnome + latest X, in the magazines), more complex, more colorfull (the green [OK] i guess), with the idea to get money from it.
well now with the partnership with hp this is possible.
we have 10 more years with the BSD license for full free code.
long live bsd.
Redhat drivers (Score:1)
Do you ever get the feeling that... (Score:1)
that RedHat is turning into a monopoly. There for the longest time I thought the 'm' in monopoly stood for 'M'icro$oft. But now I am starting to think that it just stands for 'm'oney.
I truly do hate saying this, since I am and have been for the past 3+ years been running soley RedHat (none of that dual boot crap like most of you out there). But Redhat, which has done great things in the advancement of both a workstation and server linux has outstreched its arms on this one. First with Oracle, now this...
I only hope that it enhances the product, not the price (like other companies, M$, have done).