Home > IBM > IBM Widens Embrace of 64-Bit Linux IBM Widens Embrace of 64-Bit Linux Submitted by Tudy Parghel 2004-03-01 IBM 20 Comments With a strategy dubbed Linux-on-Power, Big Blue is pairing its Power platform and Linux as a way to expand its reach into 64-bit computing. About The Author Eugenia Loli Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker. Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli 20 Comments 2004-03-01 7:16 pm …not to miss the links to the second and third page of the article at the bottom of the page. In other words – I can just DREAM of how Linux would run on IBM’s chips. If anyone has seen or tried this already… please share your experience with us little curious kids 2004-03-01 8:01 pm http://www.momentum-cpu.com/main/news4225.html here u go let us know how u get on Snake 2004-03-01 8:20 pm I’d love to have one. Until then I’ll stick to my AMD64 laptop… 2004-03-01 8:26 pm I’m running SLES 8 on an IBM p615. It’s extremely, EXTREMELY fast. The only comparison I have is SuSE 9 running on a P4-2.8. Both servers are now serving the exact same dynamic pages, and the p615 blows away the P4. The only problem I’ve had has been to do drive mirroring, but SuSE has been really good at getting me working, I should have a howto with it by tomorrow. 2004-03-01 9:03 pm @Trudy You may want to read this review: http://www.linux-mag.com/online/pr_p615_01.html 2004-03-01 9:32 pm ..for the links. RE:Nice… By Gabriel Ebner You lucky guy, laptop with amd64…sounds good;) 2004-03-01 9:35 pm Anyone else worry about the Linux kernel becoming cluttered with options? It’s already somewhat of a nightmare figuring out which options your motherboard supports and which one it doesn’t in the linux kernel, but now with different cpu architectures coming in play, with their respective I/O cards, motherboards, and architecture specific technology, I can’t see people making sense out of recompiling the kernel. I think they should maybe reorganize it a little. 2004-03-01 10:32 pm I’m not sure what you mean about cpu’s. Those “different cpu architectures” have been there almost from the beginning. As for clutter: I’ve always thought the linux kernel pretty cluttered and bloated. Still my main beef with Linux after all this time is — It’s not a microkernel. 2004-03-01 10:50 pm If the kernel becomes more conveluted with cpu/motherboard options then maybe a work around would be to have things better oprganised in the menu setup when compiling. For instance one can select motherboard type based on socket or chipset and the same for cpu i.e. select cpu type and then go into options specific to that cpu. Just a case of better menu organisation and selecting categories you want to bother with in the menu rather than having to enter each category to deselect any options if you know what I mean. Tell you what though, I’m intimidated compiling my kernel without a basic gui (-; 2004-03-01 11:08 pm Hi ” As for clutter: I’ve always thought the linux kernel pretty cluttered and bloated. Still my main beef with Linux after all this time is — It’s not a microkernel” yes. linus is against a microkernel. the message based methodology is lethargic compared to what linux currently offers. the kernel source can be bloated but a typical runtime binary is very small. 2004-03-02 6:05 am I just wish IBM or somebody would sell more affordable PPC boxes. I really like Linux on PPC. I guess when I upgrade my mac, my current G3 iMac will become a deticated Linux box. 2004-03-02 8:22 am People that say Linux is bloated are usually armchair coders with no clue other than it “has more stuff” than their favourite operating system. The compiled Linux kernel image can match or better any other modern, full featured operating system for size. And there is a small set of patches for Linux 2.6 that enables it to boot on a system with 2MB of memory. Yes, by Linux 2.6 I am referring to the kernel that also runs on a 512 CPU system with 2TB memory. You have to be mighty careful when bashing Linux these days. No longer can you just pick something at random to spew rubbish at with any credibility. On any technical level, the Linux kernel is quite likely to be superior to the kernel of your operating system of choice in many / most areas. Perhaps I have misjudged you, and you are not full of shit. In this case please provide a link or two to any relevant findings. It’s not hard, and it really adds credibility to your point. 2004-03-02 8:49 am I know very little about the PPC. Why is it not a main stream component as Intel and AMD? http://www.newegg.com/ doesn’t have it. Where can I get a bare-bone PPC box or the parts for self assembly – without involving anything Apple – for running Linux? 2004-03-02 11:21 am yes. linus is against a microkernel. the message based methodology is lethargic compared to what linux currently offers. the kernel source can be bloated but a typical runtime binary is very small. That’s because: 1) By design Unix was never any good for message passing, just like windows sucks with pipes. 2) Microkernels are too slow on x86 due to the slow context switching. On other architectures they’re just fine. Still, linux is not very modular, you can have a microkernel and then run key services on kernel space, wich isn’t the same as compiling memory managers or tcp/ip stacks directly into the kernel. 2004-03-02 11:34 am > I know very little about the PPC. Why is it not a main stream component as Intel and AMD? Becouse MS Windows (execpt for NT4) doesn’t run on it..? > Where can I get a bare-bone PPC box or the parts for self assembly http://www.pegasosppc.com 2004-03-02 2:13 pm Ceck out the PegasOS 2 motherboards with IBM G3s and G4s. The boards with CPU run about 250 USD. The come with a copy of PPC Debian and the Morph-OS. Assemble with standard PC cases and parts. 2004-03-02 2:15 pm On a related note … anyone here ever use MorphOS. What’s the deal on it? 2004-03-02 4:39 pm People that say Linux is bloated are usually armchair coders with no clue other than it “has more stuff” than their favourite operating system. You talk about “clueless”, “favorite operating system” and “Linux”, when all I’m talking about is monolithic vs microkernel. Who’s the one with no clue, the one with a “favorite operating system”, but not making making any relevant points? Thus: You have to be mighty careful when bashing Linux these days. No longer can you just pick something at random to spew rubbish at with any credibility. On any technical level, the Linux kernel is quite likely to be superior to the kernel of your operating system of choice in many most areas. Not just “careful”, but “Mighty careful”? Umm, OK? I thought you wanted to talk on a “technical level”, but here you are speaking with what comes down to being an emotional reaction. I read nothing technical. For starters, here are three words: Acquisition Interdependency Incest And those 3 things only get worse over time. Speaking of a particular monolithic kernel – Linux: Linus was right about his reasons against microkernels at the time – that the issue of portability was negligible, at the cost of performance, which was important to him to squeeze all he could out of a 80386. But these aren’t the days of 80386’s anymore. Linux became portable a long time ago, but microkernels haven’t been “slow” for quite some time now either. As for bloat, and speaking about Version 2.6 on a 2MB disk: It’s not byte size that I’m talking about. It’s modularity. As much as possible. Two more words: Memory protection Monolithic kernels don’t want to do just this: Be a Kernel. They’d rather behave like an Entire Operating System, and run just about everything as a system process, instead of user space. A fundamental flaw, in terms of security, efficiency, managability, and stability. But if you want to clamor about byte size, I dare you to attempt reducing a Linux image to under 15kb…Hmm 50kb? Nope. And as time wears on, it will only grow. In this case please provide a link or two to any relevant findings. It’s not hard, and it really adds credibility to your point. http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?MicroKernel : Linus Torvalds says, “True, linux is monolithic, and I agree that microkernels are nicer….From a theoretical (and aesthetical) standpoint linux looses. If the GNU kernel had been ready last spring, I’d not have bothered to even start my project: the fact is that it wasn’t and still isn’t. Linux wins heavily on points of being available now.” If you want the truth, like you’re question seemed to pose, then I’m not sure how much more “relevant” a finding can get. If you’re one of those who thinks Linux is somehow the Second Coming, not even Linus will convince you. 2004-03-02 7:28 pm Ridiculous!!! Everyone knows that this is the first appearance of the Enlightened One on Earth and that it shall grow numerous overcoming all else. 2004-03-03 8:42 am You didn’t make a single coherent point in all your rambling. No, I don’t care for your early 90s buzzwords Acquisition, Interdependency, Incest, Memory protection. First you say that microkernels aren’t slow, then you say you want to put services in their own memory space. Get a clue, things like cache and TLB flushing are only becoming more important with newer processors. And no, I don’t want a 15K interrupt handler for an operating system. I said full featured. In fact, it appears you just stepped out of a time machine after traveling forward 10 years.