Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Linux Ported to IBM's Network Computer Terminals 84

Bryan Mattern wrote to us with the latest press release from IBM regarding Big Blue and Linux. IBM has now ported Linux to run on their network terminals - specifically the Network Station Series 2200 and 2800.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Linux Ported to IBM's Network Computer Terminals

Comments Filter:
  • I see the article includes ThinkPads in the list of "Linux certified" systems. Can anyone with experience confirm that everything works under Linux on a 'pad? I'd heard that there were problems with the video and modem.
  • Linux is.

    Linux is the Tao, and the Tao is Linux.

    All things are Linux, and Linux is all things.

    In the begining, there was the kernel, and the source was good. And the Great Programmer looked down upon the source and saw that it was Open.

  • ok, slightly off topic, but I never liked dopus. DirWorks from Quasar [] was much faster, AND more configurable imho...
    tkDesk looks much like DW2, and has much the same configurability, but it's soo sl-o-o-www.

    Anyone for re-implementing DW2, if the Quasar [] ppl wont port it ?

  • by jd ( 1658 )
    Like I've always said, get Wine and use the Windows drivers. (Though that really needs some kind of interface to allow Linux apps to route through Wine, if you want to make use of decent software.)
  • Well it seems that IBM really Loves Linux. We all now that IBM is more than a company, it's THE company. This is a first step for IBM, let's hope it won't be the last...
  • It's funny... Whenever people are angry at IBM they say how much IBM has fallen since it's former days of Pre-Microsoft glory. But here, when IBM is doing something Pro-Linux, it's "IBM is THE company". I don't have an opinion either way, but I hardly think of IBM as the end-all of computing, although they certainly have clout.


    "You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."

  • Even though when this issue is raised it seems to raise some concern, I feel this is another example that Linux was indeed right that Linux's next real dominance may come from being used to run embedded systems and NC's like these terminals. Which can be a great thing for linux as a whole.
  • by jd ( 1658 ) <> on Monday January 31, 2000 @04:30AM (#1319209) Homepage Journal
    Their biggest FUD-line has always been that Linux is unsupported. With IBM -really- piling on the press announcements and support, this is seriously undermining that argument.

    (Not that the argument was ever true, but in the minds of the Supremely Rich Ones With All The Corporate Gold, what was spaketh was True, even if not "true".)

    Also, I'm going to expect a =SERIOUS= shift in the marketplace, with this announcement. Now, customers will potentially be able to run EXACTLY the same software on their hand-helds and laptops as the backroom boys are running on their mainframes and supercomputers.

    (Translation: The bosses might beat the techies in the next Quake 3 tournament.)

    But this should FINALLY destroy that pathetically outdated image of Linux as being some backward OS for long-hair rebellious punks who just won't settle into something mature, like Windows 3.1.

    If a corporation is going to throw -THIS- much weight behind Linux, maybe - just maybe - some of Linux' critics will get the idea that there's something real there. Something that deserves respect, not contempt, for it's differences.

    Maybe, being "weird" in the eyes of the Establishment is no longer quite the penalty it was. Maybe the Establishment has finally grown up. Now to see if the media can do the same.

  • Just speculation:

    These are Thin-Client Terminals which probably means that they will have the Linux ICA Client and Linux will only run as in an embedded system. Fixing an X-Server into them is possible I suppose. But my bet is that these will be marketed for Citrix [] Metaframe or Microsoft's RDP Client for Terminal Server []. As is usual, for these things to normally run as an X Server they have to boot a separate OS from a TFTP server.
  • At the risk of being moderated down, I'd like to know if IBM will open-source their contributions to Linux. Yes, this sounds like zealotry, but it's not. We must remember that it's not Linux itself that matters; it's the open source philosophy behind it that matters. Even if IBM manages to leverage Linux into the desktop market successfully, if the contributions are not returned to the open source community, this will only hurt us in the long run.

    Although I must say, it's really good to see Big Blue contributing to Linux! :-)

  • Does anyone else find the fact that a huge company is embracing a [relatively] small open source initiative in a vain attempt to gain market share? It's as though they're going after that 'Built for Windows 95' logo that everyone was seeking when Windows 95 came out. Don't misunderstand, I still believe this to be a good decision, but the reasons behind it may be sinister.
  • jd - I totally agree with your comments. To add on it, I'd just like to mention that I'm using *this article* to explain to non-techie friends of mine that LINUX IS REAL, and LINUX IS COMPETING IN THE REAL WORLD... so many people, as you said, jd, think that Linux is some nerd-head backwards "dos-like" primitave penguin OS... thanks to IBM...

    I can pass this article on so my non-techie friends can start taking the idea of Linux seriously.


  • It's not clear exactly what is actually meant.

    ported Linux to run on their network terminals would suggest that IBM was replacing the (embedded OS, perhaps OS/2? perhaps something else?) on the NCs with Linux.

    On the other hand, International Business Machines Corp. (NYSE:IBM - news) on Monday said its line of network computer terminals can now run on the alternative software system Linux could be read to indicate that IBM was providing the server-side software so that rather than requiring NT/AIX to boot up the NCs, one could boot them from a Linux host. The former is more impressive than the latter, as well as being rather a lot more "invasive" of functionality.

    Frankly, I'd be happy enough having the Network Stations run something embedded and tiny and just plain have lots of support for them to connect to Linux boxen.

  • I think that the OSS community (if in the form of an open source scientific org) would have developed the atom bomb if given the chance and resources. The only difference would be that they would have let everyone else know how to do it and do it well . . .

    That's a bit scary to me.
  • Linux is going down unless it gets some Winmodem support... BUILT IN! Win2k is winning...ahah...

    WinModems based on the Lucent chipset work in Linux, with a proprietary driver from Lucent themselves. The WinModem in my Toshiba notebook works without a problem.

    It is only a matter of time before other manufacturers will release drivers, and before open-source drivers will appear.

  • Um, can you name a single company that didn't contribute to the war effort during WWII? There was almost no civilian manufactuing during those years. Every company had to contribute or have their operations taken over by the government. And that was sixty years ago, how is this even remotely relevent?
    Disclaimer: I work for Big Blue, although not on Linux, alas.
  • I use a thinkpad with Linux. I use alsa for sound. Works great. There is no support yet for the internal winmodem, but there are people working on it. There is some support for dos and os/2, so it should be doable. Once it *is* working, think what you could do with a completely programable modem?
  • The IBM Netstation we have currently runs NetBSD (1.3 I believe) and had the most solid Netscape I have ever seen on a Unix(like) system - even Java applets worked!

    I hope the new Linux-based netstation software has an equally good browser.

    Would it be too much to ask for IBM to make this version of Netscape more generally available...Please...

  • Now that Linux is mainstream I think we need to start thinking about the needs of the masses. In particular we need to come up with a simple catchy phrase that we can drum into the popular concsiousness and have it associated with Linux.

    This will make it easier for the average non-geek to latch on to a single aspect of Linux and keep it in their brain. It doesn't have to be informative just something that will stick. I mean look at the rest:-

    SUN - THe network is the Computer.
    - The dot in dot com.
    Translation: INTERNET

    Translation: BUSINESS

    MICRO$OFT - Where do want to go today?
    Translation: We'll do EVERYTHING for you {aka MONOPOLY}

    Coke - The real thing.
    Translation: Coke is GOOD for you. Pepsi is NOT. etc. etc.

    They all emphasize an aspect that they want people to remember. I believe its called branding. These slogans create powerful mental associations in the public mind and Linux cannot afford to ignore this. Linux cannot afford to be called the "alternative software system" when it has reached this level. I propose that we emphasize STABILITY and OPENNESS, both proven qualities of LINUX. Now to summarize that in a few catchy words.

    Any ideas?

  • Most IBM NCs already run an open source OS, specifically NetBSD. NCOS is just a hacked version of NetBSD 1.3.2

    Rumor has it that some people have "real" NetBSD running on IBM NCs but I haven't checked.

    It isn't much stated, but NetBSD is located inside of literally hundreds of thousands of deployed network computers, and millions of embedded device applications.
  • by Greyfox ( 87712 )
    Modems will be obselete in a couple of years now, and Linux is already moving toward owning the always-on always-connected internet appliance arena.
  • They gave the mods for the S/390 to Linus, and corporate policy (If I understand things correctly) is to make software open unless the manager of the project can show a need to keep it closed (A good example of the latter would be the DB/2 source.)

    A lot of high level managers and working groups understand that open source and open standards make for a level playing field where everyone can compete fairly, but there's a huge amount of corporate inertia, too, so it'll take a while before all the IBM divisions fall into line.

  • All you need is a little weapons grade plutonium and a way to force it into a critical mass fast enough to get an explosion rather than a melt down.

    You can get the weapons grade plutonium from your local boy scouts or other terrorist organization, generally in a dust form. You can mold it into a sphere with play-doh and use TNT to bring it all together. Keep the left-over plutonium in a lead-lined safe. If you don't have a lead-lined safe, and old coffee can will do. It makes a great mosquito repellent, too.

  • by Steeltoe ( 98226 ) on Monday January 31, 2000 @05:23AM (#1319235) Homepage
    How about:

    "Linux, raising user awareness-level of stuff they don't wanna know since 1992."


    "Linux - Everything M$ without the $"

    or perhaps

    "Linux - You better believe our FUD, or your SOL"

    I shudder to think of this one

    "Linux - Sponsored by Redhat"


    "Linux - Sponsored by Coke and Srg. Pepper"
    is perhaps a bit too close to the truth?


    "Linux, what's OO?"

    or even

    "Linux, because C is superior in every way."

    Christ. How about just:


    finally putting a stop of user-dumbing slogans once and for all. Let the users figure it out themselves.

    - Steeltoe
  • This doesn't change anything for Microsoft. The NCs already were not running Microsoft OSes. They were running NetBSD. This is just a shift towards the Linux "brand" of open source.

    Microsoft HAS put pressure on various NC makers in the past, of course -- see the famous pressure they brought to bear to destroy the DEC DNARD -- but in general, one should keep in mind that NC OS is NetBSD, and that it isn't likely that NC is going to start shipping Win CE or some crap like that instead.
  • *G*

    I've got this image of a TV ad, with the camera panning in on this -ultra- sleek sports car, with the voice-over saying something like: "Fast... Dependable..."

    Camera zooms through the window, to some kids playing a game on a laptop computer... "Universal... Linux... Where what you need is what you get."

  • Have you not read the 'Armed Nuclear warfare' HOWTO? it's in the 'Total World Domination' directory at MetaLab.
  • I confirm this. I run a 1400 e-series, works great, IBM has certified one of their Thinkpad for Linux (don't remember which one) and intends to do it for the whole line.
  • Speaking of The Bomb, check out The Bomb [], a site dedicated to The Invisibles - Grant Morrison's counter-culture comic, a wonderfully weird mix of religion, drugs, aliens and revolution (Grant's been doing the JLA for a few years as well).
  • by cjs ( 12969 ) <> on Monday January 31, 2000 @06:16AM (#1319245) Homepage

    Now, customers will potentially be able to run EXACTLY the same software on their hand-helds and laptops as the backroom boys are running on their mainframes and supercomputers.
    What do you mean, `now'? This has been the case for a while now. For the last few years IBM has been running NetBSD on these same NCs that we've been talking about, and NASA has been running NetBSD a AlphaServer 8400s with gigabytes of memory and terrabytes of disk. And now you can run NetBSD on a handheld.

    I'm finding this whole Linux revolution rather depressing, now, because it is, quite obviously just a Linux revolution and not an open source revolution at all. IBM built its NCs around an open-source OS and has been providing full support for it for a couple of years now, but nobody (except for a handful of NetBSD developers) cares. They now are either ditching it for Linux or are porting Linux just for show and not to use, either of which is just a fashon statement. And I don't think Linux users really care that IBM couldn't give a damn about open source so long as IBM keeps mentioning the word `Linux' in their press releases.

    It seems to me that various interests, including many in the Open Source community itself, are pushing things toward homogenity rather than diversity. I suppose this shouldn't come as too much of a surprise since that tendency has been there from the start: Richard Stallman, for example, makes it quite clear that he wants to see a world where nobody would ever use or write non-GNU software because there would already be a GNU package that is better.

    I'm starting to suspect that one day indeed Linux will rule the world. Unfortunately, things won't change much for those who are not part of the ruling class, old or new. Instead of a large company like HP or MS getting special licencing terms for Sun's JVM or Digital's proprietary boot code for the Alpha, it will be Linux, but the other open source operating systems will still be left out. (I use these examples because they have already happened.) And I'll be using Linux instead of Windows, not because it's the OS I want to use, but because I can get drivers for proprietary hardware for it when I can't get enough information to write that driver for my preferred OS. How is the Linux monopoly going to be a change from the Windows monopoly?


  • I think this will be rather productive - Well, depends on your needs. For me, it's the greatest news since hot chocolate became widely available. We just bought ~100 IBM NetStations, to run an in-house developed program. The problem is, we had no way of running it on the machines - they were just X terminals. Damn good X terminals. But for every 10 machines, we needed a 192MB-RAM P-III server. Now (I hope), we will be able to use our old trusty 486 as a file server, and run the apps on the Netstation itself!
  • Netstations have long been able to boot off Linux as a server. No software was provided to configure the Netstations from Linux, but this can be done in a Windows machine, then put in the Linux server for the Netstations to use it. In fact, using Linux as a server, I am booting 10 concurrent machines with no problems... And from the original 150MB root directory provided by IBM, I have skimmed it down to ~15MB - I only needed an X terminal, and that's just what it does now.

    The operating system shipped with the NetStation is a weird, crippled, limited and client-oriented version of AIX.
  • Here's a good link to this story:
  • My modem appears to have died and since I'm too far from a CO for DSL and the only cable modem available is one way (i.e. it requires a phone line and regular modem for the uplink) I'm shopping for a new modem. There are some expensive modems out there, but I was planning to buy a $25 Archtek modem from The description doesn't contain anything to indicate that it might be a winmodem. Is there really any reason to spend more money on a modem?
  • Hoo-boy! We have a Real Problem here, don't we?? Winmodems are going to take over the industry!

    Just what we need! Next thing you know, they'll start developing CD-ROM devices with rim drives, just like those little cheap turntables us old folks got stuck with when we were kids.

    Just think! Soon, Linux will have modems that smoke our CPU's in no time! Bet that'll make Intel happy!
  • Have you not read the 'Armed Nuclear warfare' HOWTO? it's in the 'Total World Domination' directory at MetaLab.

    I'd be much more interested in the "Unarmed Nuclear Warfare HOWTO"...

  • I don't want to make a point-by-point reply to this, because I like the BSD's. In fact, I've been looking 'round for that book on BSD kernel internals because it's such a good, technical book. Unfortunately, though, the *BSD people have made some political mistakes that may have given them this very problem.

    Several years ago, I tried FreeBSD 2.0 or so on an old 486/50 I had been using to test various free OS's. I got my copy from Walnut Creek, with the nice book. Sadly, I discovered that the Promise IDE controller in my box wasn't supported, or there was some other problem with IDE support. I wrote about it to Walnut Creek, as they suggested I do, and got a mail back from one of the BSD team. The mail said, basically, "we ain't interested in fixing it. Our OS is for big servers with SCSI controllers, and we don't support "broken" hardware. Send the stuff back to Walnut Creek, and use Linux, because they support every piece of junk out there, no matter how badly it mangles the rest of the system."

    Now, I'm not saying the *BSD people should abandon their goals. But I am saying that they need to establish a clear public image as a very high-quality OS for use by seriously-committed computer professionals. Either that, or they should seriously consider scaling their OS to include, at the bottom end, the same level of "junk hardware" support that Linux has.

    Maybe it's too late to consider these issues now, but I hope not. I'd hate to see a super-excellent OS go away just because of politics and ideals.
  • I was testing IBM's thin client to NT a few years ago when I realised that it was really using the X protocool underneeth and I could connect it to any box in our building that was running some type of xdm - including Linux.
    • Name recognition itself is worth many millions of dollars. If you have name recognition, your marketing department is halfway home.
    • When two very similar entities compete for the same economic niche, one will eventually dominate. Coyotes drive out foxes.
    Linux is the dominant Unix operating system. A very similar Unix system has no chance in that niche (see second point above). Why give up millions of dollars in mindshare. You'd have to pay for a quarter-billion dollars in SuperBowl advertisements to even hope to approach Linux mindshare. That's the true free gift that IBM is getting. Other than Windows, the most likely challenge to Linux is from systems that differentiate themselves radically--BeOS for instance.

    I hate to burst your bubble, but the BSDs had their chance. The world has changed since the PDP11 days of yore. If you want a scapegoat don't blame Linux. Blame Kurt McKusick of CSRG who refused to port BSD to the Intel architecture, despite requests dating back to 1986. By the time Jolitz had something to offer, six years had gone by and Linux was already on the rise. The BSD CSRG died shortly thereafter.

    Let that be a lesson in elitism and snobbery. Isn't it ironic that McKusick's Moto 68000 is obsolete but the the Intel architecture which he spurned now owns 90% of the CPU market.

  • by Azog ( 20907 ) on Monday January 31, 2000 @10:54AM (#1319260) Homepage
    You have some good points regarding BSD and IBM.

    But really, you can't seriously say that a Linux monopoly would be indistinguishable from a Windows monopoly! It's the source! You always have the source!

    You claim it's not really an open-source revolution, but a Linux revolution. I completely disagree! I think one important reason why Linux has grabbed so much mindshare is the GPL.

    BSD uses a different license - fair enough, I have no problem with people choosing whatever license they want to release code. But, if I am writing code for free, to give away, I don't want to see that code used for profit by companies that have burned me before. I'm a developer, mostly for Windows at the moment, and I've been burned by Microsoft in the past. Microsoft can use BSD-licensed code, "extend" it, and sell it for profit. Why would I want to support that? That's why I would use the GPL, implicitly would aligning myself with Linux rather than BSD.

    And your comments on a Linux "Ruling Class" don't make sense. As long as the source is under the GPL, there is no ruling class. That's the whole point! It's FREE! Free to read, change, and modify! It's completely contrary to the concept of a ruling class that controls access and has special privilege!

    The GPL gives you the source, remember - so you can always port to your favorite OS. Try that under the Windows monopoly - difficult, isn't it!

    That's how a Linux "monopoly" would be different - the GPL makes a monopoly impossible.

    Torrey Hoffman (Azog)
  • >And I'll be using Linux instead of Windows, not >because it's the OS I want to use, but because I >can get drivers for proprietary hardware for it >when I can't get enough information to write that >driver for my preferred OS.

    I don't believe that there will ever be a significant amount of binary-only drivers for Linux. So, how can you say that you don't have enough documentation for a piece of HW if you have the source of a Linux driver for it? You lost me there, really.
  • Hey, i've got an idea. Let's deliberately not bastardize our so-called ``product'' with the mind-numbing marketing slogans that have so effectively kept the computer industry dominated by the lowest of technically inferior crap for the past fifteen years. Just maybe the reason Linux is here is because that strategy is a path to certain death and blazing failure! I don't care if you have the source code or not. If you deliberately scheme to keep people from thinking, whether it be through implanting ``brands'' into their brain or through any other scheme, you'll get exactly what we have right now.

    You know, for all you say, the Microsoft stuff really isn't that bad. I mean, it does crash a lot, and I know it's supposed to be, like, evil or something, but frankly it does everything I need it to do, at work, and it all works together so nicely and I already know how to use it. Did you know I can take an Excel spreadsheet and put it in a Word document? and besides, everyone else is using Microsoft and I'm using it at work, so I need to use it or else I can't Collaborate with my Colleagues, and the next version is going to be even better than this one--and, frankly, I really just don't see what's wrong with it. It does everything I need it to. What you need to understand Mr. Fancypants Arrogant Computer Geek, sir, is that Real people have Real problems, and they need Real solutions, that work, and do what they need them to, not rediculous useless ideologies and arguments and discussions.
    What is it that you want? Do you really want Linux to take over the world to the exclusion of every other competing operating system? Or do you want to see the blatant technical superiority over Microsoft that brought Linux to where it is today become the driving force behind an industry previously ruled by marketing geeks, greed, and the exploitation of fools?

    I'm not saying you shouldn't advocate Linux. I'm simply saying it's grossly inappropriate to take marketing inspiration for a project like this one from giant megacorporations and television advertisements. People have a surprising amount of brain in them when you get them away from their TeeVee's--there are other ways to reach whatever audience interests you.

    And if you don't care to try, you can always just cram it into an NC and shove it down their throat without their knowing, like IBM did with NetBSD. :)

  • Confirmed. I'm running the Debian GNU/Linux distribution on this ThinkPad 570 in my lap. I had no problems with the video if I used the latest XFree86 with support for NeoMagic. The modem, of course, is a WinModem of no use for me, but I've heard that people are working on it. I think it was at []

    Mikael "MC" Cardell
    Defender of the Sacred GNU, Temple of the Moby Hack
    ICBM: N 58.414904, E 15.610734

  • Linux, the Choice of a GNU Generation.

  • IBM is _really_ starting to bug me with this crap. Their support of linux has thus far been mostly just hype. I had linux running on one of these NCs _months_ ago - all you have to do is export your display back to it and run a window manager - there is no 'porting' required.

    The NC runs X windows natively. It does not run linux. It will not run linux. It can DISPLAY linux, just like any other Unix box with X11>R5 running.

    They're just supplying a steady stream of press releases to the public to make ppl think they actually give a shit.

    What really happens is that one person in the company is bored and ports something over, then, after keeping it secret for a long time, getting into a fight with his/her manager, and pulling strings to keep the linux box around, someone in marketing hears about it and says, woah, wait, Linux is now a buzzword.

    At least, that's what happened to me, and everyone else at IGS when I worked there.

  • >>Linux: We're open for business...
    >>+ Serious, and Open Source

    I think this is the best one so far.

    I like the use of the word "open". So Open Source and business CAN work together inspite of what Bob Metcalfe thinks!;)

  • The current incarnations of NetStations are not just X-terminals - in fact - as mentioned elsewhere they are running NetBSD. So theoretically an externally developed program can be run on the box. The point is that the model of an open NC is not really supported at this time - at least in policy if not in practice. This seems to be changing, but the fact that Linux is now on the box doesn't really change the situation greatly.
  • The NCs - clients themselves - will now run Linux; as mentioned in other followups it has been possible to boot from them, but no images are shipped for Linux specifically. However, there is no Linux NCs being shipped currently; the server images might be made available to some customers, but i'd believe this would be a limited set for some time yet. Running on Linux is actually is a fairly easy transition since the current OS is actually NetBSD. Tiny is probably not the word for either system, but there is work being done on it.
  • If you just need to know if a particular modem is Linux compatable, then head on over to :

    That said, in my experience, cheap modems in general and winmodems in particular are usually far more troublesome than "real" modems, even on Win95. If you think about it, it makes sense because real modems just look like a serial port to your computer and thus all use the exact same driver. Even on Win, where they may claim to be installing a "driver", all they really do is install an inf file (a text file containing a list of the modems features). The actual program code that operates the thing is exactly the same for literally hundreds of different models. Winmodems however, require their own special drivers (even if they now support Linux) and are inevitbly less well tested. In addition, since the Winmoems tend to be very cheap the manufacturers arn't likely to spend much money updating the drivers (to support new versions of your OS) or fixing bugs so when you upgrade your Windows (say from 98 to NT) or your linux kernel or try out FreeBSD you can expect to buy yet another modem.

    The modems I sell to customers generally cost me between $49 - $80 dollars.

  • Would it be too much to ask for IBM to make this version of Netscape more generally available...Please...

    It might indeed be possible, as the version of Netscape for OS/2 [which I am using here] is a wholly collaborative effort between IBM and Netscape; even to the degree that all versions of it are downloaded from IBM rather than Netscape.

  • I can validate that the announcement was not to indicate that X server support would allow the DISPLAY to be set, but rather that the boot code has been modified so that the Linux kernel has been ported and tested on the NC. Perhaps IBM doesn't give a shit about Open Source but they do care when customers ask for Linux and it makes sense to deliver on the platform. IBM has been considering moving the NCs to Linux for at least 2 years, but until the lawyers finally got out of the way there could be no move towards Linux.
  • using Linux instead of Windows, not because it's the OS I want to use, but because I can get drivers for proprietary hardware for it when I can't get enough information to write that driver for my preferred OS.

    Hold on here. It doesn't matter if the hardware is proprietary. Either it's documented or it isn't. If it is, you can get the docs too. If it's not, somebody reverse-engineered something, and you can do it too.

    How is the Linux monopoly going to be a change from the Windows monopoly?

    The words "Open Source" do mean something, you know.

    The world's most portable OS:

    Or BSDI, or FreeBSD, or OpenBSD, or ...

    Linux doesn't have that kind of nonsense, and IMHO that's a major factor why everybody's talking about Linux and the BSDs are ... let's say, somewhat less popular.

  • Speaking as someone who works at IBM, all future IBM NCs will be shipping with Linux. Despite the the advocacy posts here, NetBSD has been very problematic for us at IBM. The main reason we are moving to Linux is increased flexibility, and standardization of development tools. What most advocates miss (whatever their stripe) is that we are in business to make money. Cutting internal support costs is ``job one''.

Don't tell me how hard you work. Tell me how much you get done. -- James J. Ling