Tweet
If IBM can convince someone that wants to run a Linux application to host it on an iSeries, I guess it's another box sold. However, it seems a mismatch in a way, since Linux and its applications are generally inexpensive and the iSeries is generally expensive. Aren't most Linux users of the mind set that they can do something for a lot less money. Maybe IBM is thinking "Hey, if they pay less for the software, maybe we can sell more expensive hardware."
-
-
Why Linux on the iSeries?
David,Linux on the iseries running in a separate lpar makes very little sense to me either. If I want Linux access to iseries data, there are a lot cheaper, simpler ways than Linux in a lpar. I've heard all the arguments about how hosting it all on one piece of hardware, sharing dasd, backups, reliability and such are all great with lpars on a single iseries box, but I just dont buy it. I can make a much stronger case for putting Linux apps on a separate Linux server.Linux merged with os/400 is much more interesting, but, again, I dont know if the end product would be very useful. Seems like I would just end up with a Linux box that has a builtin database - so I wouldnt have to buy Oracle. Is that reason enough to go to all this trouble?Are there any folks out there who think Linux on the iseries is a good thing? If so, please jump in here and let us know why.Alex Garrison"David Christie" <christie.david@home.com> wrote in message news:ef29792.-1@WebX.WawyahGHajS...So what is the big deal of having Linux on the iSeries? If I'm too believe what I've read so far, OS400 does a fine job of web serving. What advantage does this offer to business? If they want Unix, why not buy a Unix box (HP, RS6000 ...)? At least then there would not be a need for both iSeries people and Unix people. I guess anything against MicroSoft is worth it in IBM's mind. -
Why Linux on the iSeries?
I was recently at a shindig where Frank Soltis spoke. He said the main usages of Linux at the moment are as a firewall and for web serving.I'm sure, given the industry's momentum (including IBM's stong support) that some day there will be stronger reasons for Linux everywhere. I may be clueless, but at the moment, I don't see many compelling reasons. I know this has been said a million times in other forums, and I welcome being clued in, but right now I don't see that it solves a business problem that wasn't already solved before. Free software isn't good enough. Overall, I'm glad it's coming on strong, because monopolies are generally bad, but I've personally got very little time to learn a new system that doesn't give me any benefit (at the moment, anyway). I've heard it can make my 486 run like a Pentium, but I'm not there anymore. I've heard it can be stable, but my Win2K laptop virtually NEVER crashes, despite weeks of going in to sleep mode daily, and heavy usage of all kinds. Windows 98 is another story, but I'm not there anymore either. So what else is there? Just so we're clear, these are just questions that in my mind have to be asked, and have yet to be answered. They're not saying that whatever method you (the figurative you) use is bad. BrianComment
-
Why Linux on the iSeries?
I'll just respond on the tail end to David, Richard, Alex, and Brian.
IBM is investing over a billion dollars in Linux development over the next year to make Linux enterprise level scalable. Given that they are doing this with technology from their own OS's that will enable Linux to compete for free with the operating systems that power IBM's largest computers, this is nearly unbelievable. Why would they do this? I've gathered from MC articles and IBM announcements that consulting is a key goal to this. And didn't IBM generate about 40% of their sales/profits in consulting last year? Still, this doesn't strike me as compelling. VA Linux went this route and soared in stock value on the premise of having the inside line on Linux development and thus consulting gigs but has since settled back to earth. These folks may or may not have the inside track on usurping Microsoft someday once Windows programs can be recompiled for Linux with Borland's Kylix project, but the consulting fees that can be charged won't reach the stratospheres of SAP and Oracle. It would provide a new vein to mine for IBM's consulting group but one no richer than those being mined today. Of more interest is IBM's commitment to running Linux on all of their hardware, the universal OS that they have been seeking for several years now with a microkernel theory. You know, OS/2, OS/400, S/390, and AIX are just flavors of the fundamental foundations of operating system functions. You saw how far they got with that. Probably goes hand in hand with their Websphere vision of a common software platform running on a common OS on all of their hardware platforms with some sort of tie to the native OS of each platform for unique value add. In that sense, if IBM were not interested in running Linux on the AS/400 there would be many questions raised as to their commitment to this platform. On the other hand, I don't know of anything they're not running Linux on. They're even porting it to wristwatches. As to the Java JVM being the leveling factor of all OS's, IBM is recognizing reality that most software is not going to be Java running on a JVM of every OS. Where that is true, fine, although I am still mystified as to why there seems to be a substantial amount of Java activity on Unix and NT that is not running on the AS/400 or is available much later than the other platforms, but the reality is that C development under Linux is really the leveling factor of the future. Of course, Linux has a JVM too, so even that aspect of universality is supported. As to the suggestion that this may encourage a company to just go ahead and go with Unix instead of staffing for both OS/400 and Linux, Delta has done just that. I have read for some time their intensive efforts to message in real time with MQSeries and the AS/400. According to ComputerWorld, they just uncoupled transaction messaging from their mainframes to a web environment running under HP-UX. They didn't add the web communications to those AS/400 communication boxes. They committed to HP big time. Funny. HP isn't running Linux on their box. But they've ported the Gnome Linux visual interface to their HP Unix operating system. We would be well advised to convince IBM to do the same for the AS/400. Ralph
Comment
-
Why Linux on the iSeries?
Ralph said: "But they've ported the Gnome Linux visual interface to their HP Unix operating system. We would be well advised to convince IBM to do the same for the AS/400."Now that would make sense. A fusion of Linux and os/400 might just be the ticket to getting a native gui quickly to the as/400.AlexComment
-
Why Linux on the iSeries?
From eWeek on ZDNet: GNOME, KDE put Linux on the desktop--almost "Long-term Business Impact: Beginning with Version 2.0, GNOME will be the default desktop environment for Solaris and HP-UX, making it the most common face of Unix and seeding GNOME throughout the enterprise." Sun and HP are making the Gnome visual interface their *default* desktop environment, and Sun serves more web pages than IBM could ever dream of serving. You don't hear people saying that Solaris and HP-UX don't have a visual interface and that those terminal emulation apps make Unix a dinosaur, and even though IBM is sacrificing us in their hopeless attempt at world domination with Websphere web page serving, HP has the Bluestone app server and still has enough sense to give their OS a complex GUI interface. What does HP and Sun know that IBM doesn't? RalphComment
-
Why Linux on the iSeries?
While I realize that I'm REALLY late with a reply here (just found this forum), need to add my $1.05 CDN. Linux is a great OS, maybe not as robust as OS400 right now, but in the future it may well outstrip OS400 for reliability. Think the move to Linux is a great move for IBM and it's another arrow I can use to defend myself when MS bigots start calling the 400 antiquated.Comment
-
Why Linux on the iSeries?
There are many advantages to having Linux on an iSeries box not the least of which are: 1) centralization of resources 2) maximum utilization of available computing power 3) high availability with minimal downtime 4) consolidation of operations staff - and thus defacto cross training 5) excellent backup and restore facilities 6) development tools for most any language one would care to use. What more do you want or need? (The marriage of Linux to iSeries is a world-class relationship that could spark a whole new computing community for the iSeries and more opportunities for those of us that work on them.) I suppose the iSeries could provide the "Blue screen of Death" but I think MS has the patent on that one. Oh yeah, great security (even for Linux on iSeries box - see www.pentasafe.com ).Comment
-
Why Linux on the iSeries?
Is this an advantage for iSeries to have Linux, or Linux to have iSeries?Comment
-
Why Linux on the iSeries?
I guess it really doesn't matter if no one will use it. DaveComment
-
Why Linux on the iSeries?
I think that's the right answer, Dave. RalphComment
-
Why Linux on the iSeries?
So what is the big deal of having Linux on the iSeries? If I'm too believe what I've read so far, OS400 does a fine job of web serving. What advantage does this offer to business? If they want Unix, why not buy a Unix box (HP, RS6000 ...)? At least then there would not be a need for both iSeries people and Unix people. I guess anything against MicroSoft is worth it in IBM's mind.Comment
-
Why Linux on the iSeries?
It's a server consolidation issue. If a company wants one box, and they can afford to partition off a CPU and some DASD, then they can run Linux, with everything that is available for it and not OS/400 (e.g., firewall, which is what IBM is saying seems to be the major customer interest in running Linux on iSeries). In this way, Linux benefits iSeries more than the other way around.Comment
Comment