Screaming Penguin

The linked ComputerWorld story is very intriguing concerning the IBM vision for the future. IBM has come on strong in supporting Linux with both hardware and software initiatives. I believe this is a positive approach for both IBM and Linux, but where does it leave AIX and or Monterrey? What is the IBM direction? The story deals with just those questions. I thought the IBM philosophy would be one of low to mid range entries with Linux, high end entries with AIX. Monterrey (the new 64 bit OS from IBM intended for the Intel Itanium chips) would be the next generation of IBM OS? OK, thats what I thought, but where did all that go, it is not adding up. IBM just announced the availability of commercial Linux clusters for massive business computing, the high high end goes Linux. These clusters even borrow technology from RS6000 clusters. IBM also has low and mid range Linux offerings in the Netfinity line. AIX remains a RISC only OS (there has been x86 discussion, but not any real initiative that I know of.) Monterrey is a non RISC OS aimed at Itanium. Linux is x86 and probably will be one of the first OS products to run on the new Itanium also (ports fast, gotta love open source.) Linux is also the platform many of the key applications of the next few years will be destined and or designed for. What does all of this mean? First of all, whatever the result, you want to be compatible with Linux as much as possible and want to run Linux binaries, secondly you want to be Itanium ready and thirdly you want to have choices of offerings. I think IBM is going the correct direction still, all of the goals will be met. I think there are also some existing overall direction and cooperation issues among departments, but the intention is there. While I do think IBM is going the right general direction, that is where I diverge, the picture of specific offerings is unclear. This is a potentially a serious problem, and one that has plagued IBM in the past, but lets hope it gets cleared up. You want have offerings, but the choices should be clear, this picture is a bit murky. If IBM can continue the direction AND clean up and streamline the offerings then I think we have a *nix powerhouse for the future. What a smile that would bring to IBM, be able to ship an Intel server and NOT sell somebody a copy of NT, wow that would be cool (uh, not many of the customers order that OS2 CD, sorry.) With all of that confusion further confused, I leave it to IBM to clear up. All I can tell you is that IBM recognizes Linux for the mammoth importance that it will have in the direct and distant future and that recognition and embrace could be a huge potential payoff. My question in all of this, with this huge potential market and massive future potential, why is there not an IBM Linux distro? Why not make the $29.95 for an "official" copy, standardize what should go on your hardware (cluster or not) and create a support services business? Where is the Big Blue Linux?   Linux and IBM Initiatives: ComputerWorld