IBM Wants Linux 464
jsse writes "In a news conference IBM's senior vice president Steve Mills said 'the company will gladly drop its version of Unix from servers and replace it with Linux if the software matures so that it can handle the most demanding tasks.' Now the Giant, along with many other companies, jump to Linux bandwagon. The question is wether this bandwagon is capable of carrying a Giant that huge. Or the question is: can Linux beats AIX?"
This sounds like... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:but it should be more like... (Score:2, Insightful)
(Disclaimer: I know IBM is already investing heavily in Linux, so they may already be doing this).
Good move for IBM (Score:3, Insightful)
Managers like to hear that so they don't buy something their IT people don't know how to run.
But they'd probably want more control (Score:5, Insightful)
However, we've seen that IBM has put a fairly good amount of time, money, and effort into making Linux compatable with their products, and their products compatable with linux itself. But so far, I just don't seem them dropping AIX for Linux anytime soon. Not until the control over the linux kernel becomes more decentralized.
Sounds great...what's the catch? (Score:2, Insightful)
I suppose IBM may make some money upfront convincing their AIX clients to pay for a Linux conversion by convincing said clients that Linux has better support, the client won't be locked in to depending on IBM, stable, fast, blah blah blah. And I suppose IBM might save money in the long-term by having a larger talent pool from which to hire Linux gurus. But, unless someone else can give shed some light on something I just don't understand, this initiative to move AIX customers to Linux, while sounding like a great technical manuever, doesn't sound like a great business manuever.
Re:Easy (Score:4, Insightful)
I think when IBM says they'll use linux if it "matures so that it can handle the most demanding tasks," they don't mean "you guys need to build pretty little admin GUIs, and make sure linux is consistent looking." I'm thinking that they're more looking for the ability to scale to a large number of processors, and high amounts of RAM.
On that subject, does anyone know if IBM's Big Iron patches ever made it on to the main kernel tree?
Garc
OK -- so how about a Test suite ? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sure IBM does a great deal of validation testing. Why not tell the kernel developers where things come up short? One of the most valuable development prerequisites are good bug reports. IBM could unleash their testing team. Or does politics get in the way -- the testing team manager doesn't approve of the Linux takeover?
Good Business (Score:4, Insightful)
1. As has already been stated IBM has been on the Linux bandwagon for several years now.
2. This makes perfect sense for IBM. They are mainly a service company and secondly a hardware company. Anyone who has done business with IBM knows that they, like most other large computer companies, make their money on installation and support. If they can cut the expense of developing their own OS they can focus on their core business.
This is dumb (Score:3, Insightful)
Note: I am not a Solaris advocate.
teknopurge
To save you some time... (Score:2, Insightful)
"yes"
"no"
"You're an idiot and there are really good reasons Linux can do it. But I'm only going to mention them, and with no sources."
"Well I too can mention things with no sources. YOU're an idiot"
(degrades to flamewar)
Can you imagine a Beowulf, what does AIX stand for anyway, All your Base, etc posts by our friend Anonymous Coward.
"Wasn't this posted last month?"
"CmdrTaco can't spell"
"BSD is better than Linux or AIX"
"Steve Jobs said that OSX is better than Linux and AIX"
various posts bitching about moderators.
There. I've saved you all that time. Now get back to work.
Re:Plain and simple (Score:2, Insightful)
Can IBM make Linux better than AIX. (Score:2, Insightful)
I am sure IBM is not sitting there idling. I would hope they are not leaving it to us(the open source community) to build them the os they want. I assume they are hard at work on this project at hand.
That is nothing but good news. Not only could we benefit from the things they build but more importantly, maybe they could be the leaders of direction. "Where do you want to go today?"
Some people may worry about a big corporation being too heavily involved in their "free os". I personally look forward to the days to come if IBM get truly involved. I first tried linux a few years ago and loved it, and continue to use it today. However, I thought at this point it would be farther ahead in some areas. If it takes a company like IBM to come in and challenge, lead and contribute then fine by me.
Even if it doesn't work for IBM, the advances will benefit all of us who use it now and this is a Good Thing.
Offtopic Flamebait: Taco hoarding the best posts? (Score:1, Insightful)
Is it just me or does it sometimes seem like CmdrTaco posts the 'best' stories? I get the feeling that he's pulling the best for himself, not letting anyone else post the 'big' stories...
Is he really a tyrant with a large ego appetite? Where everyone is walking around on eggshells, careful not to upset the big 'T'? Lest he throw a 'hissy fit' and a large dosh of 'shit' their way for posting what was clearly a 'Taco' quality post?
These are the things I think about before I force myself to go to work on Mondays...
CrplChimichanga
Aye (Score:2, Insightful)
But perhaps IBM is only refferring to userland apps, rather than kernel stuff. Userland apps
can be portable stuff.
IBM never drops support (Score:3, Insightful)
IBM never completely drops support, and would never leave profitable AIX shops out in the cold.
Software Upgrade Paths (Score:2, Insightful)
~
Re:This sounds like... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:This sounds like... (Score:2, Insightful)
I agree with the first paragraph. The same is true for Solaris on UltraSPARC-based systems, etc. However, I'm uncertain if the death of AIX and its competitors is a good thing.
Which is better for the long-term health of computing:
1)Linux on IBM Power3, Linux on Sun UltraSPARC, Linux on SGI MIPS, Linux on IA64, ...
or
2)AIX or Linux on IBM Power3, Solaris or Linux on UltraSPARC, IRIX or Linux on SGI MIPS, HP-UX or Linux on IA64, ... (toss in the *BSD operating systems, too, as Linux isn't the only free option. Also add other options that I don't know about.)
I fear that a lack of diversity among operating systems will be harmful to the hardware vendors due to less differentiation. What would happen if the current undesirable monopoly in software (Microsoft) is replaced with a monopoly in computing hardware (Intel IA64). What would happen if an unforeseen "plague" that targets Linux is unleashed?
I also fear that Linux will replace Microsoft as the main-stream computing "religion" that Microsoft is today. I don't want to see one lack of options simply turn into a new lack of options. Think of the people who say "Windows" while drooling onto their bibs. Now, replace "Windows" with "Linux" emanating from the same glassy-eyed person...
Re:But they'd probably want more control (Score:2, Insightful)
True but I think you are missing some of the point. Even in open standards there are dominant and weaker players. Consider the fight over the next-generation IP. In that case the standards are supposed to be open. However the dominant voices in the process are not developers, not sysadmins, not even universities they are people like Microsoft and Time-Warner. The largest companies that can shout the loudest to get what they want. IBM is the same. IBM is a corporation and to that end they will do what is best for themselves. This is not necessarily driven by malice it is just the state of affairs. If they find it better to move to Linux or at least publicly support it, both to piss off Bill and to make geeks worldwide love them, then they will.
If they move to using and developing Linux they will then be the biggest gorilla at the table. Linus is one person, everyone else who submits patches is one person (for the most part). IBM is hundreds. By sheer force of size and voice they will be able to dominate the direction of Linux. This may be unintentional but their sheer size makes it likely. I doubt seriously whether the CEO of IBM is twisting his handlebar moustache and plotting to wrest control away. If IBM jumps in with both feet though and becomes dependent upon Linux they will need to. At that point it will be necessary for IBM to drive Linux or at least keep it on their desired path as their bottom line will depend upon it. When it comes to the bottom line for a publicly held corporation all else is secondary.
Moreover, what about the public face of Linux? In the computing world among geeks we may know that Linus is the cheiftan. Geeks also know who Ulrich Drepper is. But the rest of the world, the people who just buy machines and use them the end-users, the university purchasers who cut deals for servers and the corporate managers do not. They know brand names and if IBM manages to identify itself with linux they may become "Linux" (or at least it's guardian) in the eyes of the majority of the world. Then this name which is the real public force and property of the Linux movement will become theirs. At that point what Linus wants, or what the early developers want, IBM will be running the show. IBM will be the company rubber stamping distros and by sheer force of weight blocking competition from people such as RedHat and co.
This is a doomesday scenario I know. But keep in mind that the computing world was once known as "IBM and the Seven Little Dwarves." Keep in mind that they also attempted to paint their ads for peace-love-linux all over san-francisco in an effort to ID themselves with the 60's. I don't think Linus and the rest of us should turn our backs on IBM (allthough I'm sure RMS does). But I do we should see them for what they are, a company, and not rush to them like the Manhattan Indians bearing gifts.
It's pretty simple really. (Score:2, Insightful)
For the past several years, IBM has been moving into the support and services areas with less of an emphasis on selling hardware. Selling complex software that requires specialized implementation services fits perfectly into that model. Porting those Apps to a less expensive platform makes the apps (and the implementation services) appeal to a much broader range of small- and medium-sized businesses. They can sell to companies that can't currently afford the big iron to run those apps.
Opening up new markets for tried-and-true applications is probably a very good business decision. I've never been a big IBM fan at all, but personally, I think it's a shrewd and calculated move. I applaud them for making it.
- Freed
What IBM really sees in Linux. (Score:2, Insightful)
AIX costs huge amount of $$$ to develop, with Linux all they have to do is to put a few engineers on adopting it. Instead of spending money on developing a whole OS, just write some drivers and adopt it to your hardware.
Ofcause, initially there will be some high costs moving towards Linux but in the end I think free labour is a all win situation for IBM.
Copied != Stolen, even by IP-Shyster Definitions (Score:5, Insightful)
While you make some good points, I take exception to this characterization of GNU/Linux's similarity to UNIX and its POSIX compliance as "stolen IP." Numerous court decisions, including Apple v. Microsoft, have consistently ruled that compatiblity, compliance to standards, and even the wholesale mimicking of a competitor's look and feel do not constitute a violation of intellectual property in any manner. The design and architecture were copied legally (actually, to be historically accurate, they were copied from a copy
Re:The future... (Score:4, Insightful)
bad for AIX customers, bad for Linux (Score:2, Insightful)
I was using AIX workstations until a couple of years ago. Here are some of the things that drove me up the wall about them:
AIX is so un-UNIXy that the Unix System Administrator Handbook [amazon.com] kept making fun of it throughout its pages as the odd-man-out (it also deals with Solaris, Irix, HP/UX, and others), comments they removed in later editions presumably not to upset AIX users too much.
In defense of AIX workstations and servers, they are very reliable machines, and people who work only in the AIX world and don't deal with other UNIX systems probably never notice and don't care about the idiosyncracies.
Altogether, I see a big culture clash if IBM tries to move AIX users to Linux. And I think that clash may well end up harming Linux if it causes stuff like JFS and LVM to be adopted more widely in Linux. Let's not fall into the Microsoft mindset where everybody must run the same software; there is nothing wrong with having Linux, AIX, Windows, Solaris, and other systems co-exist. We don't need an OS monoculture.