Is IBM (and PowerPC) in trouble?
I was just reading some material on the recent SCO lawsuit against the Linux world, and apparently they're also targeting IBM with a billion-dollar lawsuit, and an injuction against AIX/Linux. You can read more here:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/61/31234.html
What I'm wondering is what this might mean for the PowerPC processor production at IBM should they run into trouble with their AIX/Linux initiatives in the enterprise market. Should SCO win the lawsuit against IBM, could the future of the PowerPC chips be in jeopardy, since IBM won't have any initiative to pursue mass chip production for their own operating systems (which would be banned/and or Linux being really expensive)?
Jason
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/61/31234.html
What I'm wondering is what this might mean for the PowerPC processor production at IBM should they run into trouble with their AIX/Linux initiatives in the enterprise market. Should SCO win the lawsuit against IBM, could the future of the PowerPC chips be in jeopardy, since IBM won't have any initiative to pursue mass chip production for their own operating systems (which would be banned/and or Linux being really expensive)?
Jason
Comments
As for IBM, I think they would continue development of the PPC regardless of SCO's lawsuit.
as far as I'm concerned, Linux only serves to take mindshare for alternate operating systems away from Apple.
na
Originally posted by nagha
personally, i don't understand this love affair with Linux. there are free versions of UNIX (free BSD and Darwin come to mind) that can be compiled to run on x86. all the effort that's being spent to recreate functionality already existing in UNIX could be spent on making UNIX better than it is today.
as far as I'm concerned, Linux only serves to take mindshare for alternate operating systems away from Apple.
na
Linux is a really good OS in a lot of ways. A huge number of people prefer Linux to BSD. Are you saying they should have to work on FreeBSD or Darwin because Apple uses those? Why shouldn't Apple have to use Linux instead of FreeBSD? And while FreeBSD might be more stable than Linux (though Linux is pretty damn stable), Linux is more full featured and easier to find software for than FreeBSD or Darwin (without OS X). Have you ever actually used Linux - and I don't just mean logging on to a desktop system that someone else administered. Most work going into Linux isn't to recreating UNIX functionality anymore. That's been done. Work in Linux now is to make it better than Linux is to day, which many people will argue, is already better than UNIX is today.
FreeBSD, OpenBSD and Darwin without Aqua are not close to being viable desktop solutions. Linux is. Believe it or not, not everyone likes Macs, even if they do like UNIX. A lot of people are very devoted to free software, which OS X is not. Even if hackers wanted to help develop OS X, they could only work on Darwin or FreeBSD, not Aqua, Quartz Extreme, or any other one of OS X's proprietary components. There are plenty of reasons to use OS X and plenty of reasons to use Linux. If you don't want competition in the OS world, let's just shut down OS X, Darwin, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, Linux, AIX, UnixWare, Solaris, I mean they're all just cutitng into Windows market share.
Originally posted by Delphiki
Linux is a really good OS in a lot of ways. A huge number of people prefer Linux to BSD. Are you saying they should have to work on FreeBSD or Darwin because Apple uses those? Why shouldn't Apple have to use Linux instead of FreeBSD? And while FreeBSD might be more stable than Linux (though Linux is pretty damn stable), Linux is more full featured and easier to find software for than FreeBSD or Darwin (without OS X). Have you ever actually used Linux - and I don't just mean logging on to a desktop system that someone else administered. Most work going into Linux isn't to recreating UNIX functionality anymore. That's been done. Work in Linux now is to make it better than Linux is to day, which many people will argue, is already better than UNIX is today.
FreeBSD, OpenBSD and Darwin without Aqua are not close to being viable desktop solutions. Linux is. Believe it or not, not everyone likes Macs, even if they do like UNIX. A lot of people are very devoted to free software, which OS X is not. Even if hackers wanted to help develop OS X, they could only work on Darwin or FreeBSD, not Aqua, Quartz Extreme, or any other one of OS X's proprietary components. There are plenty of reasons to use OS X and plenty of reasons to use Linux. If you don't want competition in the OS world, let's just shut down OS X, Darwin, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, Linux, AIX, UnixWare, Solaris, I mean they're all just cutitng into Windows market share.
I sense a little hostility here.
Originally posted by JLL
I sense a little hostility here.
I was responding to a claim which basically said Linux had nothing to offer and that it should be abandoned in favor of development on FreeBSD, etc, so that it doesn't detract from attention given to Apple. This is SO hypocritical coming from an Apple enthusiast, since the same argument can be made for abandoning Apple in favor of Windows. I'm not hostile, so much as extremely annoyed at this kind of thinking. I'm not a Linux zealot or anything, I'm just in favor of choice.
Originally posted by THT
They can use Darwin!
Or just license all of MacOS X & server from Apple.
Originally posted by JLL
And it didn't occur to you that if (and that's a big if) IBM is found guilty of putting Unix code into Linux, that they just remove that code and continue running their business?
According to the bottom of this link, that won't matter:
http://www3.gartner.com/DisplayDocument?doc_cd=116445
"Don't ignore the problem by hoping IBM will win or settle its lawsuit (that could take a year or more). An IBM win would not prevent SCO from pursuing individual claims, which, if successful, could cost far more in penalties than buying a SCO license would. If you find SCO's case compelling and you use few instances of v.2.4, pay the license fees."
I'm basically worried that this has come at a really bad time. Microsoft is starting to really push Win2003 Server, and IBM just released their PPC 970 in hopes of placing it within blade servers that can be sold to the low end and Ultra-low-end markets with Linux as the operating system. The FUD that this is creating will limit the penetration IBM can get into that market, cause now Microsoft can say that you might get sued somewhere down the line if you go opensource. Also if this cuts into the percived market gain that IBM was going for (I don't think that they were just building PPC 970's for Apple), this might delay the introduction of the PPC 9x0 down the line, say a year from now (when that 3Ghz chip is suppose to role out). I'm not saying that IBM chip production will roll to a screeching halt, but they could start phasing it out as the Power4 or Power5 pSeries servers stop selling, and they have to rely on their itanium offerings instead (no more AIX or Linux). I do believe that one of the reasons Linux has been so popular is because it's basically free. Much cheaper than Windows Server or .NET, or whatever. If because of licensing fees this stuff starts getting expensive, you can see that the target market for low-cost and ultra-low-cost blade and embedded servers will dry up, and along with it the R&D on the low-cost 9x0 series chips. Which would again put us Mac users right back in the same hole we've been in with Moto-no incentive to increase chip speed or spend R&D cause they were making plenty of money on mobile phones, routers, or whatever. I'm not trying to spread FUD, but the extortionistic practices of SCO have really got me steamed. And I think the worst part is that SCO is a little nothing, trying to take on the world. Check out this link:
http://www3.gartner.com/DisplayDocument?doc_cd=115083
This might all be speculation, but I also think they might be in bed with M$. I mean look, they've even got David Boise to take their case anywhere they want to go. And they used to develop software for M$, like XENIX, which of course never took off. Who knows. I just can't stand what they're doing to free software, and they won't even point out what the offending code is, they're just saying that it's there, and that the world needs to pay up. Good grief.
Jason
Originally posted by Delphiki
I was responding to a claim which basically said Linux had nothing to offer and that it should be abandoned in favor of development on FreeBSD, etc, so that it doesn't detract from attention given to Apple. This is SO hypocritical coming from an Apple enthusiast, since the same argument can be made for abandoning Apple in favor of Windows. I'm not hostile, so much as extremely annoyed at this kind of thinking. I'm not a Linux zealot or anything, I'm just in favor of choice.
As I read the post he just wondered why Linux gets so much attention, and so do I in a way.
What made Linux so popular back when it was started? Why not concentrate on making *BSD better? How much better would *BSD have been today if Linux didn't exist?
Originally posted by twinturbo
I'm basically worried that this has come at a really bad time. Microsoft is starting to really push Win2003 Server, and IBM just released their PPC 970 in hopes of placing it within blade servers that can be sold to the low end and Ultra-low-end markets with Linux as the operating system. The FUD that this is creating will limit the penetration IBM can get into that market, cause now Microsoft can say that you might get sued somewhere down the line if you go opensource. Also if this cuts into the percived market gain that IBM was going for (I don't think that they were just building PPC 970's for Apple), this might delay the introduction of the PPC 9x0 down the line, say a year from now (when that 3Ghz chip is suppose to role out). I'm not saying that IBM chip production will roll to a screeching halt, but they could start phasing it out as the Power4 or Power5 pSeries servers stop selling, and they have to rely on their itanium offerings instead (no more AIX or Linux).
The Itaniums run Linux too.
I don't think that a lawsuit from a small company (who, according to Novell) doesn't even own the rights to System V) can basically close down the largest IT company in the world.
This battle is going to take some doing, because the tactic - which is a classic 800lb gorilla tactic - is simply to make it more expensive to resist than to fall in line, right or wrong, and it's going to be a difficult tactic for Linux adopters to resist precisely because Linux's appeal is not about money or profit. It's a purely cynical and brutally effective approach.
I have my own reservations about Linux, but we should all band together against this one. This is much bigger than Linux. This is the bloodiest and most cruel assault yet launched in Redmond's all-out war on free software, and Linux is just the target now because it's the new darling of enterprise. If the Linux camp spearheaded by IBM caves, the much smaller BSD and Apple camps aren't going to have much of a chance.
Originally posted by Amorph
I have my own reservations about Linux, but we should all band together against this one. This is much bigger than Linux. This is the bloodiest and most cruel assault yet launched in Redmond's all-out war on free software, and Linux is just the target now because it's the new darling of enterprise. If the Linux camp spearheaded by IBM caves, the much smaller BSD and Apple camps aren't going to have much of a chance.
I whole-heartedly agree with you on this one. The death of Linux means the death of free software. And it's not just IBM that's in trouble. As the George Weiss of Gartner Research stated, SCO can go after ANYBODY using Linux kernel 2.4 for large-scale SMP applications. Just cause IBM wins doesn't mean that any other company won't have to pay. And Apple, as part of the open source community (to an extent) is in just as much trouble, cause once Linux goes, then so do the resources for OSX/Darwin (like the KHTML code that's running my current Safari build). And most importantly, the key here is also image. Should companies see that open source is a liability, they aren't going to pour any resources or money into the open source camp, and that will mean the end of software developers, etc. OSX and Linux go hand-in-hand. If Linux is winning in the enterprise market, then it will be that much easier for OSX to gain a foothold on buisness desktops, since OSX is that much more compatible with Linux that Windows. We need open source to win.
Jason
Jason
my point is this: instead of wasting all this time on building a UNIX-like OS and then improving upon it, all that time could have been spent on improving a pre-existing UNIX OS. perhaps BSD would have been a good desktop replacement had all that time been spent upon it.
MS is using SCO just as the Emperor used the Republic's in-fighting to further his own goals... (it really does all come back to Star Wars, my friends).
I don't see why someone doesn't just buy SCO out and put them out of their misery. IBM is certainly big enough to do this on their own and it's certainly in their interest.
As always, MS will win... this is sad.
na
Originally posted by Amorph
I have my own reservations about Linux, but we should all band together against this one. This is much bigger than Linux. This is the bloodiest and most cruel assault yet launched in Redmond's all-out war on free software, and Linux is just the target now because it's the new darling of enterprise. If the Linux camp spearheaded by IBM caves, the much smaller BSD and Apple camps aren't going to have much of a chance.
I hate to say it but I agree. I wouldn't at all be surprised if Microsoft is behind SCO in some way.
I wonder if the BeOS is in violation of SCO's property. If they aren't Apple should buy the rights to it just in case...
Because if IBM bought every two-bit piece-of-shit company that thought it could make up for having no business success for a while by suing other more succesfull companies, then IBM would have no money left, since every crappy software company in existence would want in on the action.
The reason is that linux and bsd have different liscences. The BSD flavors all use the BSD liscence, where the source code is completely free, anybody can take it and do whatever there little heart desires. Linux is liscenced under the GPL which stipulates that you must share your source with anybody you distribute the binary to, and if you base something of the GPL code you still have to, hence "Open Source".