×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

122 comments

IBM is looking "sexy" (1)

banky (9941) | more than 14 years ago | (#1686404)

Its interesting to me that IBM, at the peak of the Microsoft Era, was considered corporate, stodgy, stuck-up, and backward. Now, they are moving very, very fast, reacting to the industry. They are innovating, even. Perhaps all the "old blood" cashed out and the new kids are running the show; any insights as to why IBM is suddenly seeming hip?

Re:any more information about this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1686405)

They were talking about LVD SCSI drawers, RAID arrays, that sort of thing.

Re:Building walls (2)

Kaa (21510) | more than 14 years ago | (#1686406)

Rather than learn to live with people who are different from us, and learn to tolerae their failings, it's better to just turn on the computer, so that the only people you interact with are the ones that are just like you.

I don't see any problems with that. There are many more people than I could ever hope to interact with. I have to make choices as to which people I choose to interact with. You think that my choice should be guided by some random or semi-random (tenants in an apt building) process -- why? I feel neither need nor obligation to learn to live with a women two doors down who thinks that Jerry Springer show is the greatest thing since sliced bread.

People naturally congregate in groups according to their interests and worldview (Slashdot is an example). I don't see that as bad, or, as a matter of fact, avoidable.

We talk alot here about the evils of censorship, but have you ever stopped to think about the evils of the usenet kill file?

There was a big discussion on that subject some time ago on Slashdot. You might want to consider two observations:

(1) Your right to talk does not imply my obligation to listen

(2) Killfile is a personal choice made by me as to whom I am willing to listen to. Censorship is an external choice made by someone else as to what I should be able to hear.

Do you read all Usenet every day?

Kaa

Despite misleading advertising... (1)

GoNINzo (32266) | more than 14 years ago | (#1686407)

...they fail to get the point across that you'd be forced to run AIX.

*shiver*


(Sorry, I'm an ex-AIX guy, current Solaris guy, you would not believe my requirements for going back)
--
Gonzo Granzeau

Re:Ha. (1)

tweek (18111) | more than 14 years ago | (#1686408)

It may be evil but SMIT kicks ass all over the commercial unix market. Says alot for me since I'm such an HPUX whore.

If what you say is true, why target Sun? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1686409)

If what you say is true, then it'd be a ridiculous as the announcement "Sun takes aim at SGI". Why take aim at something that you've already beaten hands down? Sun has stopped calculating their win ratio versus SGI a long time ago.

Of course, it isn't IBM taking aim at Sun that is silly. It is your bold-faced claim that IBM is demolishing Sun that completely lacks any credibility whatsoever.

Actually, I'm surprised that someone would submit an article with so many incorrect facts under their own ID rather than going AC.

"IBM's been better since day one?" Pass me the crack pipe when you're done.

Re:A question (1)

sterwill (972) | more than 14 years ago | (#1686410)

Where do you get the crazy idea that Linux, in this day and age, is "mainly PC based?" Have you ever run Linux on an Alpha? A PowerPC? Linux runs native, fast, and clean on a variety of architectures, with great device support to match. There's absolutely no reason to fork the Linux kernel to port it to a new architecture; just get GCC working through a supported architecture, create a new directory in linux/arch/, and start plugging away.

--

Re:Reality check time folks... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1686411)

That stinking SP boxes? That is nothing more than a JBORS6K(Just a bunch of RS6K) worse, it is tied up via some slownet backbone. It works fine as long as your message passing requirements are kept to a minimum. Isn't that why then bought Sequent? Can't write their own Shared resource OS and/or implement their own NUMA architecture.

As far as the OS/390, heh, Unix-like OS? As long has you don't mind submitting your "Unix" command, wait 2 days for it to reach the begining of the batch queue, then going to the datacenter to pick out the print job for your "ls" command.

Wasn't it IBM that practically gave up on the Power chips and waited years for the Power->Power2 update? The Unix group was practically the orphaned group, while the big boss on top pushed the old irons, AS/400 & their 'doze/OS2 boxes. Look at the early 90's, IBM had the hottest Unix boxes period. Then they put it in the back burner while other companies with Unix only solution pushed ahead. It is only now that IBM and HP are saying "Hey, we can't let Sun eat up all the cake, lets dig up our abandoned baby and say 'me too'"

No way; Never happen... (1)

Tony Hammitt (73675) | more than 14 years ago | (#1686412)

There's no chance that the 24 CPU box will run Linux. IBM is not interested in porting it to the big iron. They would like to keep Linux on the small scale where people expect to see it.

Last I heard, the kernel isn't even capable of running on 24 cpu's.

There is too much specialized hardware in a S80 to ever expect that Linux would run on it. The OS has to be aware of the service processor, memory faults, and really complex connection system to the IO drawers. Not to mention the fact that people expect to be able to plug SSA drives into the system, which aren't even close to being supported.

That's why it will never happen.

Re:But is it really faster than a Starfire? (1)

JordanH (75307) | more than 14 years ago | (#1686413)

Sheesh, first you say:

I'll believe it when it shows up on the top of this list [ideasinternational.com], for example.

and then when someone points out that's a very real possibility, seeing as the second one on that list [ideasinternational.com] is a predecessor of this new IBM machine that is purported as being 2.5 times slower.

Then, what do you do? You change lists. Now, it seems, the real proof of greatness is how well you do it non-clustered.

Could it be that Sun doesn't have these good clustered benchmarks because Sun Clusters don't offer scaleable performance as do clusters from IBM and Compaq?

What I think you're really saying is that you're only impressed if it shows up on this comparison [sun.com].

Re:any more information about this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1686414)

Probably just some new lower-cost variant of SSA or fiberchannel connection type to the disks or disk array.

Ya, because the S80 would walk all over it. (1)

Tony Hammitt (73675) | more than 14 years ago | (#1686415)

The 6X00 from Sun is absolutely no match for an S80. Those 4 512 bit memory paths really make the transactions fly.

Re:Multi-processor running Linux? (2)

jabbo (860) | more than 14 years ago | (#1686416)

Try 14 processors, on ultraSPARC. And 4 on x86.


Read the fucking Linux Kernel Mailing List FAQ [tux.org] before shooting your mouth off. And if you're going to dispute it, benchmark it in a reasonable context and prove your claim.

Yellow Dog Linux on the B50 (1)

MikeA (23144) | more than 14 years ago | (#1686417)

The press release is here [yellowdoglinux.com]. I guess this thing will run linux. I would like to see it in action.

Infoworld has a review up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1686418)

There's a review [infoworld.com] of this sucker up on Infoworld already. Apparently IBM shipped one to their test center. The lucky dogs.

Re:Linux sucks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1686419)

If this box does hadware domain partitioning, then it will be the perfect box for Linux. With dynamic partitioning, we could constantly upgrade the OS with the daily kernel updates without bringing the whole machine down. If your new "pre-alpha preview" Linux experiemental kernel with the latest GTK+/Gnome/32-color-ls crashes your system, it would not take the box down.

If they don't have it, the better integrate Sequent's Numa architecture so that I could have all 24 distributions of Linux on the Same IBM box.
If not, I am just going to have to dig out the other 23 IBM PC-XT and beat IBM in their own game.

Not bad (1)

ch-chuck (9622) | more than 14 years ago | (#1686427)

one could scan enough product announcements and buzzwords and come up with a DaDa [zikzak.net] engine script to crank 'em out.

Chuck
Slashdot discussion contributor

Re:Reality check or marketing spin? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1686428)

Sun's already getting their asses beat by IBM in the unix arena so badly, it's almost sad to watch Sun's faltering and pathetic attempts to so much as *touch* IBM.

This claim is so heavy on spin that it ignores reality and it ignores the article that this discussion is based on. Here's some counter spin, based on fact: Sun Expands Revenues and Shipments in All Server Categories [sun.com]. Here's a prominent quote:

Sun maintained a prominent position in the UNIX server market, capturing first place worldwide, with a 28% market share in factory revenue and 30% share in shipments. While competitors IBM and HP lost a share of the market in both factory revenues and shipments...

The RS/6000 SP2... dots the `Top 500 Supercomputers` list all over... not a single retail Sun is found on that list.

Ignore the fact that the list is filled with those SP2 killer E10000s.

The rest of your message (os verions and "stability" claims without proof, better "web servers" without proof, and the ultimate in midrange and mainframe technology -- without proof) I'll leave as an exercise for the reader to figure out.

Re:Multi-processor running Linux? (1)

Hrunting (2191) | more than 14 years ago | (#1686429)

IIRC, Linux can't support 24 processors. Linux has problems running more than two or four processors. SMP support in Linux right now is greatly behind even that of NT's. This is one of the main areas of development in the Linux kernel.

Re:Multi-processor running Linux? (2)

Tjl (4493) | more than 14 years ago | (#1686431)

Lock contention with 4 processors is down to 2% (saw the number somewhere, done with SGI benchmarking for the kernel), and is expected
to go down further.

Re:Unix is an alternative to NT! Since when? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1686433)

I bought a laser printer last week. It took me over an hour to get NT configured to use it.

I'm suprised you would admit your incompetence with NT in such a forum as this.

Bad comparisons (1)

FireDoctor (11071) | more than 14 years ago | (#1686434)

A Sun E10000, the company's hot-selling high-end computer, with 64 chips and equivalent amounts of computer memory, costs about 50 percent more than an RS/6000 with 24 microprocessors, IBM said.

Does this comparison make sense? The E10K has 166% more processors, yet only costs 50% more. What a bargain!!. Not to mention the fact that an E10K can run up to 8 instances of an OS at the same time in electrically isolated domains and this is not an apples to apples comparison.

A better comparison would be to the Sun E6X00 series. Currently, the E6500 can have up to 30 400MHz 8MB cache processors, and 30GB of RAM. I guess that wouldn't make a good press release.

Re:And, of course, the token mention... (1)

kootch (81702) | more than 14 years ago | (#1686435)

This isn't a token mention of Linux. IBM has been supporting Linux for quite some time now. Going back to August 11, Lotus (a subsidiary of IBM) jumped on the Linux bandwagon by making Notes run on Linux, on August 10, IBM joined the effort to make sure that Linux runs on Intel's Merced processor, on July 30 IBM released a new version of its DB2 database software for Linux at the same time as for other operating systems, and on July 23, IBM added Linux technical support for their server line.

Obviously, this is not a new decision on the part of IBM. They committed fairly early in the game to supporting Linux and are doing what they can to promote it on their server line and with their industrial strength solutions.

Some companies actually back up what they're saying with their actions, and IBM doesn't just name drop for the sake of a press release. They've been working to promote the Linux operating system as much as they've been working to promote their sever solutions.

Re:Processor (1)

spamspam (56954) | more than 14 years ago | (#1686436)

They are of course PowerPC's

From IBM's website:

The advanced copper technology of the S80's 450MHz RS64 III microprocessors allows for speedier data movement while reducing heat generation.

Also:
128 KB data/128 KB instruction Level 1 Cache
8 MB ECC Level 2 cache per processor

Re:More unix, even closed source, is better (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1686437)

However, the big CAD/EDA engineering apps are all migrating to NT.

Which shows that Unix is a fine OS as long as it's shoved away in a server closet and nobody has to see it.

Re:Oooooh, an OS war! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1686439)

What? AIX 3.2.5 vs SunOS 4.1.3 bwahahahaha

Re:Somehow, I'm not impressed by the S80... (1)

dadams (9665) | more than 14 years ago | (#1686440)

They're claiming their 24xPower3 box is faster than Sun's 64xUltraSparc. I don't know if it's true or not, but it is possible. It's also only costs 1/2 as much.

Size!=Speed

Re:Despite misleading advertising... (1)

Sun Tzu (41522) | more than 14 years ago | (#1686441)

"...they fail to get the point across that you'd be forced to run AIX.

*shiver*"


Seconded. I worked with AIX for years until we replaced all of our IBM boxes with Sun's. I won't be going back either without a major compensation boost! ;)

Re:No way; Never happen... (1)

barracg8 (61682) | more than 14 years ago | (#1686442)

There's no chance that the 24 CPU box will run Linux. IBM is not interested in porting it to the big iron. They would like to keep Linux on the small scale where people expect to see it.

Hmmm. Look at SGI. They were in the same situation, stuck choosing between their own Unix and Linux. In many surveys Irix seems to rank as more popular with admins than AIX. Can IBM afford to develop, build on and support AIX at the same rate as the Linux is developed by the community?

There is too much specialized hardware in a S80 to ever expect that Linux would run on it.

Remember, the work needs doing whether you are getting AIX or Linux running on the machine.

That's why it will never happen.

Never say never! ;-)

You don't have to run AIX (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1686443)

I'm an engineer at Linuxcare, which is going to do support for Linux on the RS/6000. We've got Linux running on an RS/6000 here right now. It's a lot like a PowerMac, only faster. :-)

Re:Ha. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1686445)

What is the "red suspenders brigade?"

Comparative strengths of designs ... was SunScreen (2)

LL (20038) | more than 14 years ago | (#1686448)

OK, time for Buzz Word City

For the type of applications Sun and IBM are targetting, raw processor speed becomes a marginal parameter in the design space. Instead, the smart cookies focus on the I/O-memory subsystems which becomes the performance bottleneck and cooling system which determines the overall reliability.

The StartFire is based on cross-bar switch technology spun off from Cray when it was purchased by SGI. As such it is analogous to a shared bus where processors (ie passengers) find it relatively easy to communicate between each other inside but the maximum capacity is somewhat fixed in that it costs the same whether a few passengers or fully populated. However, it has the advantage of being easy to migrate.

The original IBM SP series from which their current distributed memory design is derived can be compared with a truck convoy using CB radio (switched memory backplane). More flexibility in adding capacity means better efficiencies in matching load to task and thus better pricing (though at these lofty levels, the profit margins are MUCH heftier than PCs so there is a lot of gap for undercutting the competition).

The SGI ccNUMA (cache-coherent non-uniform memory access) can be compared with an articulated truck with multi-channel CDMA wireless giving a hypercube topology for fast node-node communications. Specifically designed for scalability and balanced I/O throughput, it commands a premium for its complexity and sophistication.

On a sliding spectrum of shared-distributed, the order would be Sun-SGI-IBM, but as processors speeds increase, both Sun and IBM are adopting ccNUMA techniques. Now a diversified transport system would require a judicious blend of each computer, matching the capabilities to each machine's strengths. Any claims of superiority are marketing delusions as you would not use a bus where a truck is needed. That is what supposedly CIOs get paid 6 figure incomes for deciding and service arms like IBM get fat consulting fees (any reader comments on their effectiveness?).

Note that raw technical considerations can be distorted to some extent by legacy concerns and availability of drivers (sys-admins). Personally I see the high-end server space get more competitive and cut-throat as souped up cars attempt to claim a slice of the action. However, some companies will need to hit with a clue-bat as the planned technological obsolescence of consumer items do not sit well with business (there are good reasons why you'd stick with old-style mainframes based on the principle if it ain't broke, don't meddle with it as more fixes are likely to add more bugs).

LL

Re:Ha. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1686449)

heh, heh. The real reason, IMO, is AIX boxes are just so dang expensive, comparatively speaking. Of course, 1-3 hour support for the rs6k line is standard (a guy'll come & fix stuff), but still. Actually, AIX is useful for at least one feature: the logical volume manager is in the base operating system. FYI, it allows volumes to span physical drives, grow filesystems on the fly, etc. No more repartitioning when you run outta space.

And, of course, the token mention... (1)

kieran (20691) | more than 14 years ago | (#1686457)

From the article:

"The RS/6000 B50 and a companion Intel chip-based Netfinity server are compact and designed for managing tasks like Web hosting, messaging, Internet security, directory services and electronic commerce. It runs on IBM's UNIX system, called AIX, or a low-cost, open source alternative that is popular with Web site managers, the Linux operating system.

``We expect these to be a favorite among those who demand Linux as their server operating system,'' said Kai Staats, chief executive of Terra Soft Solutions, an IBM partner."

It's nice to see that no-one is skimping on dropping the Linux name into this sort of press release - and they haven't even messed up the context!

Supercomputing and the future of the computer.. (2)

Lonesmurf (88531) | more than 14 years ago | (#1686458)

An argument that has been rolling around in my circle recently has been the future of computers and the extent that they will affect our lives. I, being the optimist that i am, am hoping that they will continue to become more and more part of our everyday lives. Infiltrating our appliances, homes, and everything in between.

Now, i also am of the mindset that it would be beneficial in the end effect to have large supercomputers running each and every apartment building, and in each home having dummy terminals. Now, is this a viable alternative to the PC, or is noone willing to take the chance that some privacy will be comprimised.

I like the idea. I'm sure that there are others out there that have the same view. Thoughts? Comments?

(This is not really THAT off-topic, IBM.. SUN, they build mainframes that would most likely be used as the servers for the dummy terminals. see?)

Unix is an alternative to NT! Since when? (3)

lovebyte (81275) | more than 14 years ago | (#1686459)

I quote:
The UNIX software operating system is used to run computers that control a variety of key business operations, like telephone networks, stock exchanges and office data centers. It is the main alternative to Microsoft's Windows NT.

Right! And my Ferrari is the main alternative to a Nissan Micra! When you reach the 16 or more processors, M$ Windows NT is not an alternative. I doubt it is ever one, in fact.

M$Windows users have RSI, Unix users have AWK

More unix, even closed source, is better (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1686460)

The "death of unix" (see: classic MS FUD, circa 1996) has been greatly exagerrated.

Linux, AIX, FreeBSD and Solaris continue to see good growth, and satisfied users. Vive le difference!

any more information about this? (1)

einstein (10761) | more than 14 years ago | (#1686461)

Pizzazz, or the B50,
will be sold with related new data storage systems.


does anyone know what they mean by that? a new kind of harddrive, or something completely different from hard drives...

hmm...

HA! This is funny. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1686462)

IBM is trying to pull four fast ones. o) that they have perfect scalability for machins o) that Sun is not a moving target o) that AIX or Linux is suitable for this usage o) that anyone would want to switch from Solaris Solaris and Sun hardware scales so goddamn well that I can't see why *anyone* would want to have IBM systems right now. Just don't see it. And UltraSPARC III will be out any day now.

But does it run linux? (1)

hobbit (5915) | more than 14 years ago | (#1686463)

The RS/6000 B50 and a companion Intel chip-based Netfinity server are compact and designed for managing tasks like Web hosting, messaging, Internet security, directory services and electronic commerce. It runs on IBM's UNIX system, called AIX, or a low-cost, open source alternative that is popular with Web site managers, the Linux operating system.

Apparently these new servers run on AIX or linux - emulating high-end hardware can't be the most efficient approach, surely?

Comparing apples to eggs (1)

zmooc (33175) | more than 14 years ago | (#1686464)

A few weeks ago there was a comment about the new playstation beating all pc-hardware in calculating triangles per second. Everybody was talking about how playstation would take over the market. Someone mentioned that by the time the playstation II will be released, PC hardware will be at least as fast. This article looks a lot like that; it's comparing IBM's latest product to a Sun product that is a lot older. When Sun comes up with a new system the press will be telling us it is going to take over IBM's position, and so on...

They already began advertising heavily... (2)

Joheines (34255) | more than 14 years ago | (#1686465)

...in Germany: Today, there was a 10-page 4-color A3-size flyer in "DIE WELT", one of Germany's biggest newspapers, advertising the RS 6000. That must have been insanely expensive.

Is this a good move? (1)

shomon2 (71232) | more than 14 years ago | (#1686466)

That recent red hat interview here made it clear that if 90% of people have MS OS's and 10% have UNIXes, then it makes sense to compete with the 90 rather than people in your smaller 10%. Which was the reason for red hat not competing aggressively with other distributions.

Following the red hat strategy, they should stop trying to compete with sun, and they'll have a larger market to compete for.

Processor (1)

tak amalak (55584) | more than 14 years ago | (#1686467)

Anyone have any info on the processors they are using? I know they are copper, but the model eludes me. Perhaps the POWER3? It's the most likely candidate. That is a kick ass processor with Awesome FPU power.
--

Multi-processor running Linux? (2)

ebradway (18409) | more than 14 years ago | (#1686468)

Anybody know if the 24 CPU box was going to support Linux?

IBM would have to throw some kernel hackers at the RS/6000 kernel in order to get it to tick. But nowadays that wouldn't be unheard of.

But is it really faster than a Starfire? (3)

Sun Tzu (41522) | more than 14 years ago | (#1686469)

I'll believe it when it shows up on the top of this list [ideasinternational.com], for example. It's cheap to claim you have the fastest computer -- much more impressive to prove it in an open forum.

Does anyone know what they are basing their claims on?

Re:Supercomputing and the future of the computer.. (1)

vr (9777) | more than 14 years ago | (#1686470)

Now, i also am of the mindset that it would be beneficial in the end effect to have large supercomputers running each and every apartment building, and in each home having dummy terminals. Now, is this a viable alternative to the PC, or is noone willing to take the chance that some privacy will be comprimised.

I like the idea. I'm sure that there are others out there that have the same view. Thoughts? Comments?


I think you're absolutely right. It would be nice if it was like that. People don't need expensive PCs to do regular stuff like surf the web, answer emails and write documents.
A large server in every apartment building would be a good idea, as it would reduce the individual costs.

.. but I see other possibilities. Apartment building intranets. Creating a cybercommunity to complement the physical relationships. Apartment building newsgroups. A homepage for each apartment.

This would be a Good[tm] idea, and it would hopefully strengthen the relationships between the tenents, and they could also (possibly) have a larger influence on the decision that affect them.

More of the usual... (1)

Nexus7 (2919) | more than 14 years ago | (#1686471)

Reportedly there was a time unlike now when a reporter would set down the facts, that is report, without adding his/her own uninformed 2-bit comment. Such as, "The UNIX software operating system is ... the main alternative to Microsoft's Windows NT." See it everywhere nowadays, mediocre journalism. Of course on /., knee-jerking libertarianism compounded with smug reporting makes it even more interesting.

Essentially, it's reporting/FUD for PHBs which finds its way into a techie forum.

Re:Reality check time folks... (3)

Foz (17040) | more than 14 years ago | (#1686472)

Now let's get nice and dirty. Solaris is up to what, 2.7? After being SunOS 4.1.13. (Not sure on version number here, feel free to correct.) And still has bugs. Just recently IBM released OS/390 Version 2, Release 8. A followup to Version 2, Release 7

First off, Solaris 8 is approaching (or in) early access (it rocks, btw). Second off, surely you're not claiming that just because AIX (ugh... it hurts just to type those letters) has a higher version number that it's better?

"This one goes all the way to 11, it's one louder".

I really don't know what you've been smoking, but the concept that AIX has been "whipping Sun's ass" is ludicrous. Sun has the number one position in Unix server market share, is the platform of choice for scalability, and is FAR more palatable to just about every sysadmin I know than that evil bastardization AIX.

You're also forgetting that E-Business is where it's at right now. Sun is dominating the E business scene and the Netscape/AOL/Sun alliance just makes it that much more deadly. Why do you think Sun's a target? Because they're at the top, you yoyo.

IBM may have "invented" the mainframe, but they got their clocks cleaned by people willing to move faster, work harder, and play smarter. They lost the burgeoning PC market to Microsoft, and the high-end server market to Sun and HP.

Personally, I'd be much more afraid of HP than of IBM, if I were in charge of Sun.

Re:Supercomputing and the future of the computer.. (1)

Lonesmurf (88531) | more than 14 years ago | (#1686473)

I would also like to add this additional thought:

How many of you that live in you apartment actually know the person that lives next door..down the hall. I am willing to bet my shorts that 75% of you do not.

Imagine how much easier it would be to interact with virtual neighbors than with real, whiny ones.

Re:Comparing apples to eggs (1)

mrogers (85392) | more than 14 years ago | (#1686474)

To quote the article,
"There is likely to be a lot of pressure on Sun for the next several months," he said. "I don't expect a dramatic shift, but the IBM share of the UNIX server market will increase. It's a significant step forward for IBM."
I think TechWeb were aware that this announcement does not mean the imminent death of Sun. :)

Re:But is it really faster than a Starfire? (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1686475)

Um, the model before the one in this article (the S75) is second on the list, as this machine is about 2.5 times faster i think it may have a chance.

Re:Linux sucks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1686476)

Because "the entire OS market is being replaced by Linux next week."

Don't you hang out on Slashdot.org much?

Re:Reality check time folks... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1686477)

IBM's PPC hardware has always been superior to anyones elses hardware. What they are doing now is entering into a specific server market with a (more than) competitive product.

What is interesting about this is Big Blue marketing Linux. In the fullness of time (it takes time to optimize gcc to the ppc line like it was optimized for pentiums) there will be a cutting edge Linux PPC. Who is it aimed at? Not Sun (who is the target of the high end server announced here) but at Microsoft: Linux's role in Big Blue's plans are to keep NT from growing from low to mid-range in (alleged) capabilities. There are people out there who know nothing bu Microsoft who would buy it, but if you contract the market share available for MS to compete for, then MS cannot recover the development costs, etc., etc. IBM is using Linux to protect IBM's mid-range and high range servers from Microsoft competition!!!!

This means it will be in IBM's corporate interests for the indefinite future for them to support Linux. (Apple is going to what is apparently a variant of FreeBSD as well.) Hence, the emergence in the past year of alpha and beta products for Linux and some open sourcing of IBM products for Linux. Enjoy the ride!

Re:Unix is an alternative to NT! Since when? (1)

arthurs_sidekick (41708) | more than 14 years ago | (#1686478)

err, the link at DH Brown [dhbrown.com] says that AIX is tops in sysadmin satisfaction:
AIX 4.3 retains a wide lead in system management

Original claim re: sysadmin satisfaction made on this thread:

[AIX] consistently rates below NT in sys admin satisfaction surveys.

Just to make things clear, in case they weren't. I initially thought Spacelord was defending the original assertion that sysadmins like NT more than AIX. (I know of no NT admins who *love* NT, which is not to say there aren't any)

A reality check? Give me a break. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1686479)

I'm trying to figure out if your article should be moderated up as a humor piece, or if it should be demoted because nearly all your facts are incorrect.

> Sun's already getting their asses beat by IBM in the unix arena so badly...

Where have you been for the past five years? It is just the reverse. Perhaps you are left wondering why "IBM takes aim at Sun", which, by the way, is the topic of this discussion.

> The RS/6000 SP2... 16 node configuration... dots the `Top 5000 Supercomputers` list...

As does the singular (not 16 nodes put together) Sun Starfire. Are you reading the same list I am?

> They'll gleefully outserve any Sun you put them up against?

Let me guess, you don't have any specs to back up that claim, right? IBM is the ultimate web server? Pllleeassee....

Your reality check needs to have it's reality checked.

Re:Is this a good move? (1)

mrogers (85392) | more than 14 years ago | (#1686480)

90% of people have Microsoft OSs on their desktop machines. IBM and Sun are competing for the server market, where there is a more even split between NT and Unices.

Re:Reality check time folks... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1686481)

Nobody I can think of uses a RS/6000 box with multiple processors as a print server.

Do you?

Re:Ha. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1686482)

The cost savings in firing the old Red Suspenders brigade should be enormous.

Re:any more information about this? (1)

chazR (41002) | more than 14 years ago | (#1686483)

I suspect they are talking about their new SAN (storage area network) technologies. Try here [ibm.com] for the usual IBM marketing-speak (with some technical info).

Re:IBM is looking "sexy" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1686484)

I think that IBM is actually trying to market to someone other than data center managers. And that has been interesting to me, to say the least. I remember when IBM was actually good at selling, but then again I remember when a 3090 was pretty damned sexy and brand new ...

I am not sure that anything else has changed. I remember when IBM seemed to be lost, laid off a lot of people (some of whom really hadn't done much for 20 years, some who immediately started their own companies and made a lot of money, once freed from the shackles of the first group of people), and kept the white shirts and let the quality of service slip, not understanding that it was the service, as opposed to the shirts, that had gotten them their business. Gradually, IBM has been figuring this out again. But I am not sure that anything has happened other than IBM getting back to its roots.

To use an example, look at the RS6000s that people are fond of. Not bad boxes, but more expensive than they should be (the s80 in basic trim runs close to $300,000, an s70 in basic trim runs close to $150,000; I am not sure that the box, performance aside, is worth 2x more unless you must have the performance), without the full redundancy that they really ought to have (the UE4000 is a good example of how to do it right)(and I would really be expecting full triple redundancy at this point), HACMP is not Parallel Sysplex (and really ought to be, at this point), the memory slots aren't really set up for the 4GB DIMMs that we will be getting inside of two years (to use an example, the s70s that I have will take 32MB DIMMs only -- cannot go larger than that, and we bought there less than a year ago, when IBM was making 256MB DIMMs) and that is really inexcusable. On the AIX front, we still don't have anything like MVS's Workload Manager, we are still very light on heavy I/O abilities compared to MVS, the silly 32-bit-isms are all over the place (I haven't gotten into 4.3.3 yet, but I suspect that this stuff is still there), AIX still deviates pointlesssly from POSIX standards, and I want to be able to dynamically shrink LVs while the users are working unawares, not just expand them!

And this is apart from the serious space inefficiencies of the whole line under the guise of ventilation (no, just poor design). Don't get me started on power cord design with these things -- there is almost no way not to put pressure on the plugs. The service processor should be redundant, with a second one on the second tray.

Yes, I like IBM. I like AIX (more stable and far more secure than Solaris, and I have used both for years)(and it handles load far better). But this is the same stuff as we have had to put up with for years.

To make my point clearer, IBM had a real winner with MCA. It had a lot of stuff that PCI is still not set with, like the ability to easily poll devices and to vary them on and off. IBM killed MCA by making it too expansive and not open. But, you say, they are embracing Linux, so the must be embracing openness, right? Well, first of all, IBM is huge. The fact that some people are embracing Linux doesn't mean that they all are. And the present internal battles in Austin between the AIX and Linux factions apparently remind people of the Token vs. ATM battles of yore. Austin was set to go with a Linux support center in Austin, in the same building as AIX support TWO YEARS AGO, and then it stalled. So IBM may be supporting Linux, but that doesn't mean that ALL of IBM is. Secondly, IBM doesn't mind supporting Linux -- remember, IBM has had many OSes. They can happily support (and then leave) another one. Like Linux. So, is IBM now a paragon of openness? Well, I don't think that this is really true yet. I have two examples: 100Mb Token Ring and SSA. Token Ring is far superior to Ethernet in every way except cost at the bottom end (at the top, it is almost even). 65% of the Fortune 500 still have Token Ring and want to keep it. IBM has had 160MB Token Ring that blows away 100MB Ethernet in the lab for a year, and has not released it. They have 100Mb Token out and are not bothering to promote it at all. They just assumed that people would come running and that hasn't happened. Two years ago 80% of the Fortune 500 had Token Ring. IBM's time is running out here, and they seem oblivious to that. WE HAVE SEEN THIS BEFORE. SSA is better than Fiber Channel for a number of reasons. IBM has tried to keep such a hard lock on it over the last three years that essentially no one but IBM wants to do anything with it. FC-AL is now at 200MB/s and is really dominating the high end market. IBM has had 320MB/s SSA in their labs for more than a year, but aren;t telling anyone to avoid cannibalizing present sales. In the meantime, FC is growing and growing. WE HAVE SEEN THIS BEFORE.

So, Has IBM changed? I am not so sure, and, as before, it is a pity. But hey, that is just my opinion. And if we get some of those s80s, I won't be complaining ...

Re:A question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1686485)

Why has the time come for them to load Linux onto their systems?

You didn't give a reason, it seems like you just implied it was inevitable. Then you listed reasons why they wouldn't want to.

Your logic eludes me. I suspect it eludes a bunch of us.

Re:Building walls (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1686486)

I agree with the necessity of filtering out the number of people you interact with. But I think one group of people that you should not filter out are your physical neighbors. Join all the tightly focused communities you want but not at the exclusion of the humans living 50 feet away from you. Beyond any feel good intangibles, it really is good practical sense to _not_ live with a bunch of strangers if at all possible. I moved out of an apt. complex and into a urban neighborhood for primarily this reason. You would be amazed at how much nicer it is to come home and hang out with people who just happen to live on the same block I do. Mind you, I'm still a part of 4-5 newsgroups and I don't plan on quiting the net anytime soon ;) There, that was about two cents worth.

Refusing AIX (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1686487)

Then they have never tried it.

Most people, I was one once too, are scared of IBM and think about regemented blue suits and white socks and mainframe operating systems.

I took a chance on IBM just after AIX 3.2.5. Now I will take AIX over any commercial unix.

This is not your father's IBM. Technical support, aside from being available anywhere on the planet, is very good. The hardware is rock solid. AIX is a breeze to manage and comes with killer apps: JFS, LVM, SMIT.

No other provider gives you those options.

Yes, they have trailed in performace. But the bullet proof systems make up for that.

Re:Refusing AIX (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1686488)

Yes, I agree with that. AIX is a little odd, but it as hard to kill as a hammerhead. I like that. I am not 18 anymore and I have come to like my sleep.

Re:Reality check time folks... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1686489)

> The RS/6000 SP2 in it's many retail versions,
> including basic 16 node configurations, dots the
> 'Top 500 Supercomputers' list all over,probably
> comprising somewhere around 20% of it. Not a
> single retail Sun is found on that list.

There are 93 Sun machines on the list, comprising about 18% of it... www.top500.org

IBM shows up 118 times. Advantage IBM, although I'm not quite ready to describe 'ASCI Blue' as a retail machine.

> Just recently IBM released OS/390 Version 2,
> Release 8. A followup to Version 2, Release 7.
> The S/390 is reguarded as one of the most
> powerful parallel computing systems available
> today, and OS/390 is without a doubt the most
> robust, reliable, and flexible unix-like
> operating system on the market.

Of course. I really respect MVS, and its children. It's really too bad that you get S/390 confused with RS/6000...

Re:Unix is an alternative to NT! Since when? (1)

warmi (13527) | more than 14 years ago | (#1686490)

NT is an alternative for departamental servers and such ..
Quite nice alternative at that ( it is changing now with Linux on the horizont )

Re:Comparative strengths of designs ... was SunScr (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1686492)

Oooh! Oooh! Me too!

Really, that nails one of my aggravations with RS6000s right on the head: there is no upgrade path without getting a new box. Especially the memory issue. We will have 1GB DIMMs soon (Samsung is talking about 4GB DIMMs within the next year), so will I be able to put them in my nice, shiny, and still new F50? Probably not. And that annoys me. Same with CPU upgrades.

I know that IBM can do it all from scratch each and every time and that they can make up standards as they go along and that IBM is full of people with brains so large that they have to wear neck braces, but if I have just spent $80,000 for a nice quad CPU AIX box with 2 GB of RAM, I would rather keep the box and add 4 new chips and 16 new DIMMs that buy a new box.

I will still keep buying RS6000s for AIX (unlike the kiddies in this forum, I have uptime needs that are really non-negotiable) and while I would love to see Linux get some of the AIX goodies (it already has similar stability, just not the load handling)(yet), in the meantime I would like to stay up and running 24/7.

Furthermore (yes, I just got some nice coffee, can you tell?!?!?), you made a good point about the 'frames. I no longer work on them (I have my own company now and we are nowhere near that size), but damn but they worked well. I know several people at Exxon here who work on the s/390s and they are apparently getting better all the time. I have to wonder why CIOs that are allegely being paid to thing cannot do the i/o equasions and say "Well, I guess we need a mainframe." Sometime, AIX and the rs6000s (as much as I like them) just won't cut it. SAP and DB2 (a nice combination on SP clusters, too) work really well on 'frames, and I find it hard to think that 500 quad PIII Compags would be cheaper (200 x $120,000 =$24,000,000, which would buy you four decent s/390s that you could cluster, allowing you 100% uptime forever, really).

Re:Reality check time folks... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1686495)

Sure we do. We hang about 300 printers off of it (4 CPU, 166MHz, 1.2GB RAM), in four countries and seven states. It does just fine, and late at night we have been using it as a Doom server. It is also the internal ssh/vpn machine, our little news box (asr is a must), and in general use as a documentation server (with the 7133 off of the side of it). Uptime of 310 days so far, but we will have a few last minute patches for the box and we will be going to 4.3 before Y2K, sadly. As I said, it makes a damned fine print server, loads steadily at 6 or so. Also run a small DB2 database for out internal bug tracking/trouble call system to bill to the departments for the trouble that the less clueful users cause us.

Re:Supercomputing and the future of the computer.. (1)

Jon Peterson (1443) | more than 14 years ago | (#1686500)

"I, being the optimist that i am, am hoping that they will continue to become more and more part of our everyday lives. Infiltrating our appliances, homes, and everything in between. "

You scare me. Cars are good, but having them involved at every point in our lives leads to isolation, obesity, increased child mortality and pollution to name just a few.

Increased use of computers will lead to increased eye/finger/voice strain, loss of privacy, homogonization of expression, and so on.

Sure, there are benefits that computers bring, but plenty of downsides, and the bad _will_ outweigh the good at some point.

Re:Unix is an alternative to NT! Since when? (1)

pmccurdy (87674) | more than 14 years ago | (#1686501)

Yeah, that one got me, too!

UNIX and NT are considered alternatives only to those without a clue - and without experience working with both.

I bought a laser printer last week. It took me over an hour to get NT configured to use it. It took less than 2 minutes to configure Linux (RH6) to do the same.

But NT is so much easier to administer! Yeah, right.

This may be a slick new RS/6000, but it still runs AIX. This o/s consistently rates below NT in sys admin satisfaction surveys.

I'll stick with Sun for high end systems, thank you.

Building walls (3)

Jon Peterson (1443) | more than 14 years ago | (#1686502)

And you think that's good?

Rather than learn to live with people who are different from us, and learn to tolerae their failings, it's better to just turn on the computer, so that the only people you interact with are the ones that are just like you.

What a fun society _that_ will lead to :-(

This is the problem with the internet. It results in groups of people who can only talk to those that agree with them. Note the way any kind of discussion bewteen people who disagree on an important matter disintegrates into flames.

We talk alot here about the evils of censorship, but have you ever stopped to think about the evils of the usenet kill file?

'Hmmm - this guy said something I disagree with, and he said it in a kind of annoying way, and I've got a sore head this morning, so I'll press this one little button and make sure I never listen to anything he has to say again.'

Sure, you can un-kill them - but if you never hear from them, chances are you won't know if they've anything good to say.

Nasty stuff...

Project Sun Screen (4)

ChrisRijk (1818) | more than 14 years ago | (#1686503)

"Project Sun Screen" is IBMs name for their plan. For commercial unix, Sun have been pretty much stealing the show for quite a while now. I think HP are the only other large company to have better than a small increase in revenue recently in commercial Unix. HP have also been targeting Sun more recently, as are others - if you are the market leader, then you get targeted the most.

I don't know how IBM are comparing their performance to Sun's Starfire. Pretty meaningless without giving any details. btw the Starfire is over 2 years old now. I don't think Sun are yet officially supporting their 450Mhz UltraSparc-II in volume on Starfire yet, even though it's been out for a while. (btw, you can get US-II 450's with 8MByte of 2nd level cache - clocked at 450Mhz!) Also, Sun's UltraSparc-III will be shipping in volume this December, starting at 600Mhz, and from early SPEC 95 benchmarks I've heard of it's about 10% faster (in fp) than an 600Mhz EV67 (Alpha 21264A) and they haven't even finished optimising it yet. SPEC int should be very good too.

Latest SPEC results here [spec.org] - 600Mhz Athlon has SPEC int/fp of 27.2/21.6. 667Mhz EV67 (Alpha 21264A) has SPEC int/fp of 37.5/65.5. The more competition, the better! (that includes competition between OS's) .

Reality check time folks... (3)

RISCy Business (27981) | more than 14 years ago | (#1686504)

From your resident RS/6000 guru...

Reality check time once again! Woohoo!

Sun's already getting their asses beat by IBM in the unix arena so badly, it's almost sad to watch Sun's faltering and pathetic attempts to so much as *touch* IBM.

For those of you who remain clueless, let me issue you the official reality check of RS/6000 supporters the world over.

The RS/6000 SP2 in it's many retail versions, including basic 16 node configurations, dots the 'Top 500 Supercomputers' list all over, probably comprising somewhere around 20% of it. Not a single retail Sun is found on that list. The SP2, even with nodes, is cheaper than a Sun 'HPC' setup that would come anywhere near it's performance.

Now let's get nice and dirty. Solaris is up to what, 2.7? After being SunOS 4.1.13. (Not sure on version number here, feel free to correct.) And still has bugs. Just recently IBM released OS/390 Version 2, Release 8. A followup to Version 2, Release 7. The S/390 is reguarded as one of the most powerful parallel computing systems available today, and OS/390 is without a doubt the most robust, reliable, and flexible unix-like operating system on the market.

Now we can get into what Sun wants to do, websites and such. Sorry, IBM's got it plenty under control with the RS/6000 C20, F40, F50, H50, R50, H70, and S70. They'll gleefully outserve any Sun you put them up against. And they run Apache, too. Then there's the ultimate in complete connectivity, the AS/400 series, which can handle more networking than Sun, comes with Domino, which while being commercial, follows standards and handles your webserving, email, LDAP, ad infinitum. And will smoke Netscape Suite-Spot. Domino gleefully handles slashdot effect! Whereas www.sun.com is almost as slow as www.cisco.com. I've never had a problem with www.austin.ibm.com, www.direct.ibm.com, or any of IBM's websites.

Face it; IBM's *BEEN* better since day ONE. IBM *invented* the mainframe and the midrange. They have YEARS of experience on Sun. And they know how to use it. So, take this reality check, cash it, trade in your Suns, and get some RS/6000's to do the job better.

-RISCy Business | Rabid unix guy, networking guru

breaking down walls. (1)

Lonesmurf (88531) | more than 14 years ago | (#1686505)

While i must agree that the internet has lead to some disagreeable behavior, as a whole it has also allowed many people that would otherwise be lonely and outcast to put in their lot with everyone else and learn what it is to become part of a community. What you are talking about is the immature behavior of the minority (flaming, et al).

Re:Reality check time folks... (1)

Nexus7 (2919) | more than 14 years ago | (#1686506)

Piece of junk print spoolers on AIX. Always hanging. SunOS 4.1.3 no problem, was ticking aways for years without having to be restarted.

Re:Processor (1)

Mr. Haplo (75276) | more than 14 years ago | (#1686507)

Actually, I believe they're using the newer Power4 processors. I don't know the specs of them, though.

Re:Reality check time folks... (3)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1686508)

Now we can get into what Sun wants to do, websites and such. Sorry, IBM's got it plenty under control with the RS/6000 C20, F40, F50, H50, R50, H70, and S70. They'll gleefully outserve any Sun you put them up against. And they run Apache, too.

OKdoo, now you are really talking crap. The C20 is a) 5 years old and b) Hideously outperformed by ANY UltraSparc machine. The F40 is no longer a model and was outperformed by the Ultra 2 never mind the newer US machines. The F50 is out performed by the E450 quite easily. The R50 is and always will be an over priced piece of underperforming rubbish. The S70 is the first machine where IBM managed to exceed Sun by any way, and the E10000 will still top it performance wise, and there is a fair chance that the E6500 will too.

I will allow that the newer machines will beat the equivalent Sun, but that has not always been the case. The PPC601 and 603/604(e) machines were always quite a bit behind the equivalent Sparc systems. The P2SC is a great little processor and seems to be what they have based the POWER4 on.

As goes AIX vs. Solaris, I have had more problems with AIX on production systems (v3.2 up to 4.3) than I ever had with Solaris or SunOS before it.

IBM and Sun both make great hardware. I prefer the Sun stuff as IBMs always take my fingers to pieces when I try and install peripherals (5 MicroChannel SSA RAID controllers in an R50 - Ouch), but they are both pretty cool.

If only they would both cross license and come up with a unified server platform in the Intel and RISC markets and then concentrate on kicking MS in the BackOfficeServer.

Re:Supercomputing and the future of the computer.. (1)

Lonesmurf (88531) | more than 14 years ago | (#1686509)

Cars are wonderful. Bikes are better. Feet are best. Each has it's own use and I derive pleasure from using each.

Please do not misunderstand me. Computers are a tool. Nothing more, nothing less. They can be used to ease the anxieties that people feel when attempting to communicate with others, and they can be used to do great harm.

A car is used by *choice*. If you become fat and unweildy because you can't figure out that it's OK to walk somewhere.. that's your problem.

Re:More of the usual... (1)

Zoltar (24850) | more than 14 years ago | (#1686510)

I think it's a matter of computers being such a mainstream thing now, people like to banter about buzz words...breeding a lot of mis-information for newbies. But hey... it's easy and fun to do. Here's my verion of a buzz-word review of the article:


The new IBM strategy promises to open the world of high end computing by integrating the enterprise with a high end scalable server. The server holds great promise for thin-clients over the internet. People who use e-mail and AOL will benefit greatly. I felt it could have touched on the great benefits of middleware and Java with respects to Linux and chat-rooms, as well as Instant Messaging. SMP servers will now be able to offer enhanced unified messaging whith wireless critcal telephony technologies. Protocols such as TCP/IP and voice over IP will be a good example of enhanced modular services that should emerge from this object oriented technology. Perl is another example. The long term benefits will enhance the World Wide Web know as www or .com and should help web pages everywhere, also Windows NT and Y2K will see growth as a result. My only complaint was the glaring abscence of the Amiga and the G4 and SCSI drives with a MHZ and IDE.

AIX lvm and Veritas (1)

CrudPuppy (33870) | more than 14 years ago | (#1686511)

the logical volume manager built into AIX is very slick!! it has supported native striping and mirroring since AIX 4.1 without buying costly OS add-ons. Veritas, while not free, is also very slick (seems to borrow a lot of terminology and concepts from AIX lvm) and is also fairly easy to use--even has a nice GUI with colors for all the braindead NT admin-types.

ironically enough, however, the CLI for AIX lvm is much more intuitive than the GUI for Veritas (IMHO)

Re:Unix is an alternative to NT! Since when? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1686512)

Well, AFAIK, Sun's clustering is no match for HACMP, and is slightly more expensive. Solaris will fail if you give it scary loads. I have seen loads above 200 on AIX boxes for several days running (no, not on purpose, yes, that person sought other employment soon afterwards) with no problem. AIX will happily stay up for 600+ days at a time, Sun boxes generally do 300. AIX is a little odd, it is a little slow, but it lets me go home at 17:00 most days and I like that.

Re:But is it really faster than a Starfire? (2)

Sun Tzu (41522) | more than 14 years ago | (#1686513)

Um, not exactly. The model second on the list is actually five different computers in a cluster running (at least) five different instances of Oracle. The Sun at the top of the list is a single computer running a single instance of Oracle. This list [ideasinternational.com] is the top non-cluster configurations and no RS/6000's are in the top ten.

Re:More unix, even closed source, is better (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1686514)

No, they are not. They were two years ago, and the irritation of the engineers finally reached a level that they were leaving rather that get penalized for not producing work because NT was down all the time. Right now and for the last few months, the NT migration plans in the vast majority of shops has been put on hold. The response was highly negative and the result was that less work got done because NT could not and cannot handle the load.

Re:IBM is looking "sexy" (1)

mrogers (85392) | more than 14 years ago | (#1686515)

They put jazz music in their commercials. Much hipper than their previous jingle, a recording of a daisywheel printer typing "We are the future" IIRC.

Re:A question (1)

Lucius Lucanius (61758) | more than 14 years ago | (#1686516)

"Why has the time come for them to load Linux onto their systems? "

Because linux was viewed as an experimental low end platform until recently. media attention and industry momentum have cast it into the big league. And now it's viewed as stable and mature enough for high-end boxes.

"Then you listed reasons why they wouldn't want to. "

I didn't say that. I said if a high-end vendor starts loading linux, they may be tempted to modify it for their own purposes, and thus fork from everyone else.

L.

Somehow, I'm not impressed by the S80... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1686517)

I mean, Sun and especially SGI have been making SMP and/or ccNUMA machines much larger than that for years.

IBM: S80 = 24xPowerPC (or Power3?)
Sun: UE10k = 64xUltraSPARC
SGI: Origin = 128xMIPS R12k

The IBM SP is nothing to write home about, either. It's basically just a workstation cluster with a moderately fast interconnect. You can build your own Beowulf cluster using quad Xeons and Myrinet that'll be about as fast and a lot cheaper.

RS/6000 vs Sequent servers? (1)

casio (90859) | more than 14 years ago | (#1686518)

Any speculation on how IBM is going to position Sequent's (once the merger is completed.) against their RS/6000 line ?? Seams like the same market ?

Sun a open-source friendly company (0)

metawronka (90656) | more than 14 years ago | (#1686519)

Their Sun Community License is but a sham designed to draw well-intentioned developers to improve their product and fix bugs, then suddenly withdraw it and turn the source propietary again.

Re:Unix is an alternative to NT! Since when? (2)

Spacelord (27899) | more than 14 years ago | (#1686520)

>This may be a slick new RS/6000, but it still >runs AIX. This o/s consistently rates below NT >in sys admin satisfaction surveys.

Hmm ... can you back up that claim with a link? I find this comment very strange because IMHO AIX is both rock solid and extremely easy to administer. SMIT and Logican Volume Manager are really useful tools for an admin, much better (read: straight forward, not confusing) than NT's "Control Panel" or Disk Administrator, but of course it doesn't have all those fancy colors =)

About Sun on the high end: I can't really compare, because I don't have much experience with Sun hardware. Just wondering: does it have things like SP2?

AFAIK Sun doesn't have a centralized system management tool though, or am I mistaken?

Re:Unix is an alternative to NT! Since when? (1)

Mr. Haplo (75276) | more than 14 years ago | (#1686521)

Sun isn't packaged with a LVM type utility like AIX is. But, Veritas has a very nice (so I hear) volume manager out for Solaris that gives Solaris similar functionality to AIX's LVM (so I hear). I've never used Veritas volume manager before, so I have no idea how it works.

Ha. (0)

Squeeze Truck (2971) | more than 14 years ago | (#1686522)

In my experience, the choice between IBM and Sun has never come down to power scalability or price. It usually comes down to the UNIX admins flatly refusing to work with something as evil as AIX.

You are so wrong, it's simply laughable (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1686523)

There was NEVER a time when "a reporter would set down the facts . . . without adding his/her own uninformed 2-bit comment".

I suggest you go take a browse through the local microfilm archives; you'll see mediocre journalism all the way back to the very beginnings of journalism.

Frankly, I'm getting tired of all this nostalgia for "better times" WHEN THOSE TIMES NEVER EXISTED!

Argh! Get a grip!

Re:Unix is an alternative to NT! Since when? (1)

Spacelord (27899) | more than 14 years ago | (#1686524)

Well, I do have a link to back up my claims (about system management anyway)

http://www.dhbrown.com/dhbrown/OSrevu.htm#sysman

I think you all remember that study from a couple of months ago, don't you? Now I know that D.H. Brown aren't exactly best friends with Slashdot readers , but at least they had a clue here I think.

A question (1)

Lucius Lucanius (61758) | more than 14 years ago | (#1686525)

It seems the time has come for high-end vendors to start loading linux on their boxes. The question is -

Since Linux is mainly PC based, won't a vendor or two be tempted to throw their own engineers to fork the kernel to make a dedicated OS for their particular machine/architecture? This way, they can claim it runs 25% faster or whatever.

The present 28 or so Linux distros all have the same linux inside, since they mainly target the same market. But if a big vendor steps in for a specialized niche market (say, mega servers, or GFX rendering), they might very well be tempted to diverge from the rest, since:

a) their market is different

b) they don't care about a backlash since they are so powerful

How likely is this? And is history going to repeat itself? Is there any incentive to prevent splintering?


L.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...