If IBM Is Serious About Linux, What Do WE Want? 167
bfree asks: "Robert LeBlanc, Vice President, Software Strategy, Software Solutions Division says both that IBM would open source any part of AIX and that we would be better off taking bits and pieces and the expertise that IBM bring along with it. IBM's AIX Web site lauds Linux compatibility of AIX and the new AIXL only just slightly behind their statements such as 'A robust, scalable UNIX platform for critical applications.' It's clear IBM wants to be involved with Linux, and I feel that we should want that also. What should we ask them to do for us in return for their involvement? Networking scalability and redundancy, optimization and facilities for database systems (as the jfs has started) or systems management applications? It seems to me we have the offer on the plate from IBM to create a new joined project to bring Linux up another level if we can find a way from AIX. Surely we must take them up on this?"
Wish list for IBM (Score:1)
Open Source & Open Standards Compliance (Score:1)
IBM's ThinkPad moels A20, A21, T20, T21 or X20 will fail to boot every OS (including Windows) after installing FreeBSD until the hard disk is removed from the laptop and the FreeBSD partition is wiped clean. This is because IBM DID NOT FOLLOW OPEN STANDARDS.
The Slashdot story on this was here [slashdot.org], and the BSDToday story (which Slashdot copied) is here [bsdtoday.com].
Details:
IBM uses a Phoenix BIOS in their Thinkpads. Phoenix chose not to do 3 minutes of research on the internet, and they didn't find Andries E. Brouwer's List of partition identifiers for PCs [win.tue.nl]. Because Phoenix didn't care about Open Standards, they used partition type 0xA5 for their hibernation partition type. FreeBSD has used this partition type for years Andries's Partition Identifier page has been around since 1995.
At boot time, when the FreeBSD partition is seen (and thought to be a hibernation partition), the BIOS panics, doesn't know what to do, and the entire laptop is dead in the water, after FreeBSD is installed. The only fix is to physically remove the hard drive from the broken laptop, install it into a working machine, and wipe clean the FreeBSD partition.
IBM claims to support Linux, and they claim to support Open Standards. Yet they chose Phoenix for their BIOS, despite the fact that the recent Phoenix BIOS is non- Open Standards compliant. Even if IBM had no knowledge of Phoenix's bad choice, they share some culpability for not testing and checking. (In the worst case, IBM is hugely culpable for purposely and wilfully violating Open Standards.) IBM used to have a support page [ibm.com] in which they said that they would not support FreeBSD on their hardware; they have taken the page down.
If IBM will not do 3 minutes of research on the internet and check for Open Standards before implementing something, so that they don't violate Open Standards, how long will it take before Linux is affected? How long will it take before IBM violates some Open Standard related to Linux?
If IBM will purposely chose a company that produces software which is not Open Standards compliant, and will not do anything to remedy the problem, how long will it take before they chose software from another vendor that directly and negatively affects Linux?
If Linux support means anything, then it means adherance to Open Standards. IBM screwed the pooch on this one. Maybe the fact that they've taken their page down means that they are going to fix the problem. Maybe it means that they are going to try to hide the problem and pretend it doesn't exist. They have not yet apologized.
Recommendation:
For now, I am boycotting all IBM products, including their RS6000 line. I urge you to do the same. This screw-up (with no apology and no fix forthcoming) indicates that IBM really does not care about Open Standards compliance.
Kenneth J. Hendrickson
I know what we should ask for! (Score:1)
Re:A better question: (Score:1)
Remember that IBM has a huge services wing. If IBM becomes connected in the public conscience with Linux, who do you think the public is going to come to when they need help?
Now that IBM is listening and willing to help imporove Linux we have to really sit down with an IBM AIX box and figure out what is in those boxes that we don't have that we could use. Some of their development group websites might have technologies that we could use too.
Just off the top of my head, we need to investigate security models, printing systems (not that anything is wrong with cups) and getting recognized certifications for the firewall code.
I'm not sure if IBM has anything to offer as far as a graphical devlopment environment, but we could sure use a mature gui that uses the standard tools in the background. Hm... Cluster management tools would be nice and perhaps their graphical management tools are worth a look.
Thats a start for now. This is all just off the top of my head, so keep the flaming to a minimum (especially on the ide thing..okay?). Lets not waste this chance to pick through IBM's brain.
Peace out.
P.S. Thanks for jfs and those print drivers.
(This is diadian, I just couldn't remember my pw.)
Kernel Crash/Debuging (Score:1)
What I'd love to see is crash dumping, and better debuging tools.. this is something enterprise linux needs in order to be accepted by big business.. come on.. even NT can dump ram to disk
Re:CMS/Xedit/Rexx (Score:1)
Now I just need CMS
CMS/Xedit/Rexx (Score:1)
Okay...the "Good Old Days" article got me real nostalgic!
Testing on huge machines (Score:1)
Re:But ViaVoice isn't part of AIX :) (Score:1)
I spoke specificaly about making the desktop interface forever dependent on ViaVoice. Sure it's availeble. That's how a pore kid like me knows it works. However the level of integration I am talking about is not suiteble for a totaly closed software.
But ViaVoice isn't part of AIX :) (Score:1)
No I don't think it would really benefit much from being open sourced or that the development would accelerate. However I do think the time has come for Linux to start embedding voice technology for the visually impaired right into the UI.
This means for me a choice of shells during install that includes "BLINUX". A yet to be designed shell optimized in every possible way for use with speech software. Also speech synthesizers embedded in the desktop. I have been told that this can be done on KDE without adding any bloat for those who do not use it.
A crucial missing piece is that once this is done the desktop will be forever dependent on "libViaVoice.o" and the KDE people don't want to go down that road again. So IBM help us out here. PCs now include sound cards by default so adding this to Linux would iliminate the current $1400 additional premium on computers for a blind user. ( $600 hardware synthesizer and $800 software )
"Equal Employment" is just a Politically Correct fantasy as long as it costs more money to employ a blind person.
Re:Quit shooting for the stars... (Score:1)
Actually, this definately does not do them justice. They are a genuinely old company, at least by American standards :) You can't even compare a company incorporated in 1911 to a .com. They just don't live in the same conceptual space.
Why not fork? (Score:1)
If IBM wants to fork the codebase, isn't that their perogative under the GPL? As long as the source is released, then they are playing by the rules--you can't have a double standard.
Likewise, why should "WE" demand anything from IBM. They can play with Linux or not. If what they contribute is useful, then we can all use it. Just because they are IBM doesn't give anyone the right to demand some kind of compensation to "let" them contribute.
>K
Re:Important [read: tough] things IBM could help w (Score:1)
And assuming we aren't just talking about kernel stuff, but user space as well, I'd like to see tools for the above fleshed out. Performance tools for hardware diagnostics and benchmarking would rock, too.
In short, there's lots of areas where IBM could contribute it's experience (if not code) to the free software community.
LVM LVM LVM LVM LVM (Score:1)
IBM only wants to look serious. (Score:1)
LVM is the biggie.... (Score:1)
As would supporting the plex86 project or porting it to PPC
Hell, any LVM/JFS ports to Linux could be justified as R&D, allowing new eyes and new techniques to help with the speed, features and reliability.. Perhaps AIX would gain online filesystem reduction as well as enlargement?
Your Working Boy,
Re:I know what we should ask for! (Score:1)
Your Working Boy,
Re:Bring the VisualAge products to Linux (Score:1)
Not so sure about Smalltalk though. Websphere + VAJ is similarly useful for web applications, though the speed and reliability isn't there yet (though there are definitely some useful performance tuning redbooks for WS)..
Your Working Boy,
Re:LVM LVM LVM LVM LVM (Score:1)
The stuff you hate (like the ODM, byzantine IBMism commands that "map" to standard equivalents, overpriced peripherals, etc) really only crops up when you have a problem (like corrupted ODM, odd device recognition issues, missing physical drive IDs, misunderstandings of commands) and yeah, it sucks, but every platform has its little 'issues'..
Besides, if all Unix versions were the same, life would definitely be less interesting. You can't cross-pollinate ideas if you don't have many different species of idea to actually do the chromosomal hokey-pokey to begin with..
Anyone who tells you there is only 'One True Unix (tm)' is either selling something, bigoted, delusional, or part of some standardizing bureaucracy.
And this is not to say that I love AIX, or that I love it any more than its brothers and sisters (though it does have my sympathies as the black sheep
Damn, if you like your SPARC, PA-RISC, MIPS, Alpha or PPC chips, you have IBM to thank.. (and the 7013-5xx memory architecture is still pretty fscking cool if you have enough $$$ to fill out all the planars)
Your Working Boy,
Re:How about a Natrual Language CLI? (Score:1)
How about this? [cfug.org]
(hey, if someone can map sysadm processes to DOOM [unm.edu], it could be a crazy enough idea to work...)
Your Working Boy,
"Our" first most vital need from IBM (Score:1)
That and all the other "end to end" ideas rely on deliberately crippled tech, where the user is not given free run of their own property. People need to see that this necessarily harms all freedom as a consequence, since this kind of tricks have no chance without coercive legal backup. IBM is big enough to let people see so - and to refuse to play ball, giving freedom a competitive chance.
Re:Software patents (Score:1)
OTOH, maybe they like to have the 'nuclear option' available. Just think what would happen if IBM started enforcing its thousands of patents on things like cut and paste.
It's not so much that IBM accumulates software patents that is the problem - they have a need to defend themselves. It's the lobbying to extend the totally broken US-style swpat system to other places that I find objectionable.
Consumer Goods (Score:1)
I thank IBM for there support of Linux on there high ticket hardware, but please start doing something about the consumer goods! IBM is starting to look very bad in my eyes when they return emails about *NOT* support linux on many of the products I own or can buy. It's time they start thinking of Linux for all of there products.
What can IBM & I do for each other? (Score:1)
I am trying to create a "book-reader" for a friend who is losing his sight, & now cannot read print. He cannot claim against any insurance, so this has to be an "economic solution". Thus Linux is a very viable platform for us. I have found a suitable scanner controller, ( http://www.mostang.com/sane/ [mostang.com], ), and a pretty good text to speech system ( http://www.cstr.ed.ac.uk/projects/festival/ [ed.ac.uk] ). We like the fact that it is possible to choose a voice with which we are comfortable. The missing link is the OCR component. There doesn't seem to be anything out there in ftp-land which works sufficiently well for us. As I only have a relatively limited amount of time and level of skill, and cannot catch up with the details of 20 years of Neural-Network technology overnight, this has to be a rather better goer than trying to get an "academic project" to work properly. If IBM could help with this one it would earn big Brownie-points I'm sure of that. I'd be more than happy to make available any glue files I create.
I was an OS/2 user and really miss the WorkPlace shell and the "e" ( Watson Works ) editor. IMHO "e" is a much better editor than anything currently available for Linux. If these things could be made available for Linux this /. reader would be a very happy chappie indeed. As OS/2 is really no longer a commercial earner, I'm sure that there wouldn't be any real financial loss in doing that, and there is the possibility that KDE and GNOME would benefit considerably.
Lastly is there a genuine implementation of REXX available for Linux?
What various projects could use (Score:1)
Second, I'm Sure both samba projects could use all the Server Message Block docs they have, and maybe some code from the kernel.
Third, I think they could help on the user enviroment, maybe get XF to another level, or release their own X-Server.
Forth, I've only seen AIX running once, on a RS/6000 in a friends basement, but I'm sure they must have some useful apps they could work on, and port, maybe office tools, network admin tools, snmp monitors.
Fifth, I think we should give linux, and various apps that are nearly synonious with linux more features, and better support, so that ibm can better use it. IBM shoots hevely twards state contracts (schools) where they think win95 is the only os in town for workstations, and Netware 3.x/5 is the only thing that can share files.
Sixth, I think ibm should give us some wisdom, and lots of caffine. Perhaps the computing time and systems so that people could better develop some of this stuff.
:)
-LW
What *we* want? (Score:1)
And if IBM is unable to get me these stuff? Well, they're being parasitic anyways.
Re:A better question: (Score:1)
Re:Quit shooting for the stars... (Score:1)
Don't get me wrong - I think IBM have managed to reposition themselves really well. It's just not that long ago that they were the bad guys. With any luck, this pleasent trend will continue.
Re:Important [read: tough] things IBM could help w (Score:1)
I second that - smit for linux would be interesting too.
Maybe not only code (Score:1)
Well it's easy enough to ask for code. There's lots of code to ask for too! We could ask them to open-source their OS/2 driver database, although there may be NDA's they have to honour that would prevent this from happening 100%. And I for one would like to see the OS/2 WPS ported to Linux as well. Although there are technical difficulties, I'm sure these could be overcome without too much stress. (Are there any legal problems with porting WPS?)
BUT. What I also hope for from a big, muscular company like IBM is their support in the NON-technical areas.
The more IBM talks Linux in the corporate arena, the greater the likelyhood of it being accepted by the pointy-hairs. And that would be of great benefit to the Linux community at large.
And I keep hearing about some smart-assed lawyer mounting a challenge to the (L)GLP. Frankly, I'd feel much happier if IBM footed the bill for the defense against such an attack, than if I was waiting for Linus to pay for it...
Sure, I want to see the code, but I also want the exposure and, if necessary, the protection!
Re:IBM (Score:2)
What should we ask them to do for us in return for their involvement !?
Listen, the shrillness and unmerited high moral tone of the Linux community is a great turn off. Keep it up and you will be deserted in droves for the feckless dickheads that you are. You dont ask for a damn thing. You take what's given to you and you make the best of it.
Merry christmas. Enjoy your lump of coal.
Re:Open Standards: support, compliance, protection (Score:2)
Just because Microsoft has filled few places with their proprietory extentions - that doesn't make an open protocol proprietary...
Ask Redhat - they install kerberos as default if memory serves correct..
Where IBM can help (Score:2)
Then there are a lot of interesting things that are part of AIX. These ideas are usually ahead of their time and they are badly implemented.
Take the AIX system administration tool SMIT for example. It is using a binary registry for much configuration data which is a pain in the ass to maintain - text files and a binary cache regenerated from the text files dynamically, as KDE does it, is much better.
But SMIT is the only system administration tool which I have ever used which is actually helpful and easily extensible. SMIT is based on a number of command line programs to edit system configuration, things like adduser and deluser, but for anything on the system. SMIT generates command lines to execute system administration functions and you can preview these command lines before they are executed. So while SMIT is a GUI tool for the inexperienced user, at the same time it educates this user and brings the user onto the path to automated system administration.
SMIT has menus, and these menus are nowhere hardcoded. If you know the SMIT extension API, you can add menus and functions to SMIT and integrate your own software into the tool. That makes SMIT a truly universal administration tool, which can be taylored to a sites needs.
And finally SMIT keeps a log of all changed done to the system in the form of an endless shell script. So if you actually use SMIT to do your everyday system administration, you get a complete protocol of all changes to the system since the last install.
SMIT comes in two variants, SMIT with an X interface and SMITTY, with a tty interface. Both have a command line interface which allows you to shortcut into any menu screen from the command line so that you do not need to navigate through a menu hierarchy for the 1000st time, but can jump directly into medias res.
SMIT is broken in current AIX, but it can be fixed - get rid of the binary object database aka registry and enter a KDE style binary cache for textual configuration file to speed access to large parseable text files.
Also, SMIT was lacking cryptographically authenticated and encrypted remote administration capabilities the last time I checked (early AIX 4.x releases), so you still had to rlogin in order to administrate a remote station. A mass administration utility that can remotely control each single remote workstation as well as groups of them would be a great extension to SMIT.
There are other parts of AIX which are worth a very close look and evaluation. Much of it does not really fit the current Unix model as it is, but is extremely interesting and just needs a good ripoff session and a heavy dose of realworldly interaction in order to become a great addition to Linux.
© Copyright 2000 Kristian Köhntopp [koehntopp.de]
All rights reserved.
Hmmm.... (Score:2)
what I want from IBM for Linux? (Score:2)
1) Open Source the WorkPlace Shell! Every other GUI I've ever used, including Gnome & KDE, feels clumsy by comparison. We could take that, prettyfy it up for the modern world, and watch Steve Jobs turn green with envy.
2) DRIVERS. DRIVERSDRIVERSDRIVERS. Did I mention DRIVERS?
Autodetecting hardware and installing the right drivers. The fantastic WPS GUI. Oh yeah, I'd be in heaven if that was in Linux!
As far as things they could do other than what they already own:
Add more people to the job of auditing the Linux code. There's no reason OpenBSD should be more secure than Linux with all the resources the Linux community has on hand. That's just absurd.
Oh, I just remembered - the OS/2 BootManager was pretty nice. Not sure how it compares to GRUB (probably not well these days), but it'd be nice to have it available...
Re:A better question: (Score:2)
Re:This article brings a long standing question to (Score:2)
For example, if you're IBM, you're thinking "if we put all our stuff under the BSD License, MS can just hijack it" which is definitely not what they want. With the GPL, they have a layer of protection against that.
Another thing is that speed isn't everything. FreeBSD is great for things that must be fast, but that's not everything. There's system management, functionality (like proxies/firewalls/etc), and the rest. Linux actually has better support for advanced features (process migration, checkpointing, a few extra networking protocols). For the basics, FreeBSD does it faster. However, Linux has more functionality. In addition, there is the number of support channels available.
Another thing to remember, is that all of the BSDs are distributions. Therefore, if IBM wants to expand it, they have to do so along the road of the full distribution. That limits what they can do. With Linux, they can still call themselves "Linux" and have their own distribution, or allow people to choose from several.
There are good reasons to go with the BSDs, but also remember there are good reasons to go with Linux. Apple chose FreeBSD, IBM chose Linux. I think in the end Linux will win out, though, because the license gives a better amount of protection to corporations. People say that RMS isn't corporate-friendly, but his license actually caters better to corporations than others in many respects. Why would a corporation give code under a BSD license, when their competitor can take it and "embrace/extend" it?
Re:IBM supports Linux?? (Score:2)
Postfix - the greatest mailer ever - checkout postfix.org
Port to S390 - again a great accomplishment
Jikes compiler - great stuff
JFS - this will be killer when its done
Releasing open hardware boards for LinuxPPC
Modifying the kernel so it can run heavily multithreaded apps better
There's probably a million things I haven't thought of, too.
These things are great for _every_ distribution. Everyone has benefitted from IBM's help, even if their proprietary stuff only runs on RPM-based distros.
Re:Shady Motives (Score:2)
Software patents (Score:2)
OTOH, pro-swpat attitudes often come from a company's legal department, which has a life of its own separate from what the techies think, so I wouldn't be too hopeful.
Ignore 'stuff', think dialogue (Score:2)
Linus et.al. has many times indicated an interest in expanding the playground for linux into 'big iron' as well as embedded systems. Why not listen to IBM, and aske them what their customers would find lacking in linux as it stands? By becoming more informed about a market of which most of us really know little about, better choices can be made, old mistakes can be avoided, reinventing of wheels will not take place, etc.
That is not to say that linux developers should just lie down and think of Finland when IBM comes knocking; the goals for linux are at least partially different than the goals for a commercial system, and the development process tends to be very different. That would be lessons IBM could do well in learning from a fruitful dialogue (and they seem to have picked it up fairly well already).
New filesystems, failover capabilities etc. would then fall out fairly naturally.
Ps. open sourcing the OS/2 drivers would make for a nice midwinter gift
Re:IBM has BIG plans for Linux (Score:2)
If Linus gets hit by a bus, the progression of Linux is fairly clear. If he decides to reject patches because he's having a bad day, the answer seems a little less clear.
--
Re:This article brings a long standing question to (Score:2)
--
Re:LVM and GPFS for high-performance computing (Score:2)
And FreeBSD has had it for ages. vinum. The author of vinum is interested in a Linux port, too.
--
Re:GPL parts of OS/2 GUI as X replacement? (Score:2)
Most users at Sun don't even know you can get a non-X console screen (believe it or not they're not all techies there). They sit down at their machine, and they have a GUI. They also take for granted the fact that by hitting a menu option and typing the name of their workstation back at the office, they can log in remotely to their old workstation. When I did PC support, most users wanted me to install PCAnywhere on their machine so they could get to it.
Now what are the builtin advantages of a "single user" GUI again?
--
Re:DCE/DFS (Score:2)
--
Bring the VisualAge products to Linux (Score:2)
Re:What IBM Wants (Score:2)
They just need to understand that they oughta keepa their handsa offa da source , and they'll get wonders of cooperation, especially if it is aims squarely against Redmond.
Besides, nothing could prevent them from being generous towards Open Source developpers (k00l hardware, seminars, whatnot) as a genuine, legitimate R&D expense.
Ever wondered why Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing [3m.com] offers so many ingenious products? Well, it's their R&D policy that does the trick. Every researcher is forced to set aside some 20% of his research budget to investigate side effects, and they are forbidden to use it on their main research activities.
They could very well do the same for Linux.
--
Game over, 2000!
Re:Quit shooting for the stars... (Score:2)
--
Game over, 2000!
IBM is *not* "opensourcing AIX" (Score:2)
Suggestions for IBM (Score:2)
WebSphere: First, EJB 1.1 support, we need this now! Better integration with Unix admin utils. WebSphere is either admined through an undocumented XML config file or through a GUI that works sometimes. We need command line tools that work with websphere. Sometimes administration must be done remotely through a firewall, and there's no port available for the GUI to pass through. Secondly, what's with that CMP Entity bean hack? On WebSphere, you deploy a jar with your EJB and
Visual Age: no integration with CVS, I want to use vim as a replacable text editor rather than the one in VA (this might be a stretch, but hey, it would be an improvement). Try using less than 80+ MB of memory when it runs. More support for standard packages and less compiling on the fly. It takes me way too long to write code in Visual Age, especially EJBs. I wouldn't even have touched VA if the EJBs I wrote in vim would work in WebSphere to begin with. How about better docs on how to do this. The whole reason I write J2EE apps is portability. It seems that IBM is trying to pull an M$ and provide something that looks like it conforms, but doesn't really.
DB2: Actually, I have very few complaints about DB2, I kinda like it. One place for improvement though is CPU usage. DB2 appears to push everything through the kernel I/O buffers, since it doesn't support raw devices. I've watched x86 boxes jump to 100% CPU utilization during even basic queries. The simpler the query the less time it stays at 99%, but with a lot of queries this gets very worrisome for management who is making the final call. Man pages for the utilities. I understand that there are docs available in PDF, HTML and on paper, but there are always times when you need that man page, simply because of the convienance. The db2 shell should support bash rather than only ksh, or there should be docs on how to use bash in the db2 shell if it does currently support this. Most Linux guys are used to bash and are pretty quick with it. Solaris 8 also uses bash, so now more than ever Unix guys are using bash.
One other database related suggestion would be tools for Linux/AIX like ERWin from CA and more analysis and DBA tools. IBM may have some, but I haven't found them yet. Maybe support for the GNOME database GUI (Gnome Transcript?).
MQSeries: Could we get a release date please? Also in general better docs on how to use JMS would be nice. It would also seem like a good idea if IBM went ahead and built EJB 2.0 support into WebSphere so we could use Message Driven Beans with MQSeries. Many of the same things with DB2, I'd like to see in MQ as well (man pages, bash utils).
Also some nice information about how to integrate all of these together would be nice. I've never had just one of these to work with, it's always the whole sheebang. I've developed on these platforms both internally at IBM and with other clients. Quite frankly you need better information about these tools, b/c both inside and outside of IBM there seems to be a lack of knowledge about how to use all of them. I've been on my own a lot, and the tools have typically been non-intuitive about how to get things to work. I've read the RedBooks, the docs at IBM website and the newsgroups. It was still difficult.
Another nice thing to see would be Linux native on the Intel NUMA boxes. That would just be cool.
I'd like to see IBM succeed in the Linux space. I think they make damn good hardware and some of the software is pretty sweet (DB2), but others are going to get eaten for lunch (WebSphere, VA) in the Linux space unless changes are made. IBM needs to reach out and make it easier for the Linux hacker to learn IBM software and get it working as well as some of the systems we have put together using Open Source stuff (PHP+Apache+MySQL or Perl+Apache+PostgreSQL, or Java+Jboss+Tomcat+Apache, or some combination thereof), IBM needs to integrate better into the Unix world, (I haven't spent much time in the AIX world, so the admins may look more like NT guys, HHOS).
I have a few other suggestions, but those are slipping my mind at the moment, this should be enough for now...
Discuss amongest yourselves. I'm feeling vaklempt.
Device drivers? (Score:2)
IBM makes a lot of hardware. Certainly and important way they could help out would be to make sure it all works with Linux
Open Standards: support, compliance, protection (Score:2)
OK, so what do we need from them? Open Source software is built on open standards, depends on open standards. We've seen software vendors 'embrace and extend' standards to the point that they've ceased to be open (can anyone say 'Kerberos'?)
The biggest christmas present any of the big comupting companies could give the Open Source community is a cast-iron, board-level committment to support and comply with open standards wherever appropriate, and most significantly of all, never to 'extend' an open standard without making those extensions freely available under the same terms as thr original standard.
AIX != Linux (Score:2)
Sure, once some of the neat drivers, modules, and applications are open on AIX, there will be a cross pollinisation between Linux and AIX. But that isn't going to make AIX into Linux. They will remain separate systems, both will be better for IBM's moves.
The opensourcing of AIX should be hailed as a great triumph of the free software model. Now instead of Linux as the only project to point to, we can point to a completely separate system. Next, I'd love to see Digit^H^H^H^HCompaq open source VMS, just for nostalgia's sake.
IBM makes most of its money in the services arena. AIX sales were a tiny fraction of their revenue, so opening the source is not going to hurt their bottom line in any way. What would be really good is for their services group to start supporting Linux installations for large organisations, that would bring Linux into the corporate mainstream.
the AC
Re:Quit shooting for the stars... (Score:2)
IBM's knocking on Linux's door. Don't let the opportunity get shot down. IBM's a business, while Linux was NOT developed under a business model. Find a bridge, and Linux will have the oportunity to join up with one of the biggest names in the computer industry.
No need to find a bridge, I can tell you, from what I've seen and heard, IBM is building a 10 lane highway. The connection is there and is not going away anytime soon.
What's in it for IBM? Mindshare. (Score:2)
There's one thing that IBM can do that would help both the Linux community and itself: Hobbyist licensing for its mainframe OSes. Very few folks would ever run a single Linux image on a 390. By far and away, they'd use the VM/ESA operating system, which allows multiple virtual machines on one physical one, or VIF, a cut-down VM intended for hosting multiple Linuxes. Unfortunately, a VM/ESA license costs about $25K on the smallest machine, going up from there. (I don't know how much VIF will cost.)
Before you say, "But no hobbyist will run their own S/390!", I'll point out that the Hercules S/390 emulator [conmicro.cx] will run VM/ESA just fine. Now that running an S/390 is within reach of the hobbyist, IBM would gain a lot of mindshare by letting hobbyists run real configurations on their Linux boxes and get familiar with how it all goes together.
--
Re:Important [read: tough] things IBM could help w (Score:2)
HP Openmail is also available for Linux right now and supports Exchanage based mail delivery to Outlook and Entourage, with automated migration options.
What I want for Christmas :) (Score:2)
I am, however, an Average Joe(tm), so if what I want is what everyone wants, you could make a big return on your investment
First, I'd like to congratulate you on the work you've done so far. I don't know a lot about the in-depth stuff, but I like what I've been seeing. Good job.
What I'd like is to run Linux on my Palm Pilot. The Palm is remarkable. An example in successful adaptation. The UI is perfectly suited to the device, the speed is great(considering it's running on what, 16MHz?), and the hardware is cool.
I think this is something that Linux is perfectly suited for. Look at TrollTech's QT/Embedded. Amazing piece of software. What I'd like IBM to do is build the hardware, make some basic software, and sell a few million units. Use a standard UI tookit(like QT/E, or GTK+ nothing specifically "designed" for a palmtop; I'd like to, one day, be able to run the same apps on my palmtop as I run on my desktop today).
Now, this is just the end-goal that I'm talking about. But all the infrastructure work that would have to be done, if done right, would be great.
So, to sum up:
I'd like a Linux handheld, about the size of a PalmPilot, with similar cost($~200).
Software to run on it. I'd suggest QT/E, because I can read the code
The reason I'm suggesting this, as opposed to the other things I'd really like to see come out of IBM, is that I think it's feasable(sp?). I honestly think that within two years, IBM could release a handheld computer that I'd buy.
Thank you for your time, and sorry if I'm a bit incoherent. Working off a hangover
Dave
Barclay family motto:
Aut agere aut mori.
(Either action or death.)
Re:no to ATA copy protection (Score:2)
The only difference is, Divx was targetted at computer-savvy early adopters that bought stuff like DVD players early on. Of course these computer savvy people are going to look at this and say, "wait a minute!". However, hard drives are already a big market. If the big boys are persuades to make hard drives that support this and Microshaft make an OS to support it, then it could be all over.
Hypothetically, in order to succeed all of the hard drive manufacturers would have to switch at the same time. Otherwise people would just buy from the last company to switch (heck, maybe they will be so excited they won't switch, however unlikely that will be) and maybe even drive a few of the compliant companies out of business. It will be interesting times
I guess the only thing we can do is make sure we disseminate information about what there is in store for the hard drives of the future and hope people listen - and reject the idea wholeheartedly.
rLowe
How ungrateful are you? (Score:2)
Get real! We should be asking what we can do to help them. They are the ones helping us here and you think we should take that as a sign to hold out our hand and ask what else they can do for us? How ungrateful are you?
Re:How ungrateful are you? (Score:2)
Let's change the names for a moment. What do you think the reaction would be if we were talking about the Linux kernel, or Gnome, or KDE? "Thanks, Linus, et al, for producing this wonderful kernel. Now I want to demand that you do other things for our community because you now owe it to us."
I stand by my original argument. Continuing to demand more from someone who gave something away, and had no obligation to give anything away in the first place, is ungrateful and makes us look like a bunch of selfish children.
What IBM Wants (Score:2)
It seems to me that IBM "Gets" the open source movement and how to make money with it better than any other company in the industry, possibly even Redhat and the other Linux companies. And in many ways their goals align quite nicely with ours.
IBM's big on Linux... (Score:2)
What IBM Can Bring (Score:2)
1. Compiler technology to improve code generation of the GCC tools (including gdb).
2. TrueType Fonts. Surely IBM has some fonts lying around from years ago that they would not mind making public.
3. Video CODECs, (integration into the OGG/Vorbis project).
IMHO, IBM Should focus on what they need in Linux to migrate their AIX userbase over to IBM Linux first though (attempting to not NIH existing resources). Supporting both AIX and Linux is a long-term support and resource nightmare.
Re:X Windsows (Score:2)
There is actually already a windowing system called Y windows.
find it here [hungry.com]
X isn't going to be replaced anytime soon. It doesn't really need to be either... Xprotocol was designed to be added to and updated, it's just that people haven't had the motivation to do it until recently.
They really can't open up the entire code base. (Score:2)
I trust IBM as far as I can throw them -- which is to say, about as far as they're willing to be thrown given their own financial self interest. They (like many others in the Open Source movement) see value in supporting the movement. As such, I think that their support is about as sincere as anybody else who sees supporting the Open Source model as valuable.
------
In a lot of ways, it seems to me that the open source model is going back to the original copyright law intent -- by giving people an incentive to create a work that would ultimately go into the public domain. Now we have laws which, for all practical purposes, never let any creative work go into the public domain. I think that the Free and Open Source movements are now proving that the original idea of putting intellectual creations into the public domain is socially -- and even financially -- a sound concept. IBM is simply riding this horse forward.
`ø,,ø!
Re:Quit shooting for the stars... (Score:2)
Yeah, they are older than time_t.
Re:Why is it when someone says "Open Source" (Score:2)
Well, if you read the interview you will see that it is clear the IBM are talking about Linux and not the other *nixs. I think they understand better than most what they should and shouldn't do in this new arena, and it seems that what they want if to develop a Free software system which allows them to have a common OS BUT they do not see the BSD alternatives as worthwhile becuase they would risk everything they had done been taken and reused in a closed way without reaping the benefits. I think it is clear that IBM understands the deal with Linux (and essentially the GPL) which says "use and/or help, but tell your users what you did". If you think about what IBM is known for and good at, this suits them down to the ground. In 20 years the MSCE's of this world could be the ILCE's (IBM Linux Certified Engineers), all the big boxes could be IBM machines running Linux (with Sun et al free to come in their to compete, but if they want the benefits they must join the code sharing club).
Bottom line I would NOT want IBM to release under a BSD style licence, they would hold back on technologies that MS et al would like because they could take them and give nothing back. We all need to work together and forget about using open code to make money, if you want to make money from binaries, start fresh and write something new. Do you really want MS to embed ViaVoice into windows and pump lots of money into research....only to use any benefits of this research to strengthen windows giving nothing but windows binaries to their users? Or would you rather that maybe IBM will release something so special that MS will be faced with the choice of working with GPL style software, staying behind or spending massivly on research to replicate it? GPL code is usable by everyone, you just gotta play the reciprocating game...in a season like this have you got a problem with giving?
Re:Why is it when someone says "Open Source" (Score:2)
Lots of interesting and valid points....ask any of my friends and they will tell you I am a devil's avocate so take everything I ever say in that frame of mind. Before I redress your points may I just say the reason I like /. is because these argumetns can take place freely.
Firstly, if you follow the story link to the interview and scroll down to the second question you will see IBM say Linux and NOT BSD. That's their call but I agree with it....
All of your ViaVoice points are valid (I assume you are correct on L&H). I was taking this as an example. If we asked for code and worked on it, would we want a company taking all that work and releasing a closed version, possibly with some useful feature we want? I think this is the BSD/Linux fissure, but really it is liek software patents and IP to me... I just can't see how it makes sense to allow people use your work without benefiting you if you can even consider an alternative (release GPL). I have to say though the ViaVoice is not GPL, but would it be if we asked? If IBM GPL'd ViaVoice, how much attention and use would it receive. Would Linux strive ahead of Windows thanks to this (come on now, voice control and recognition is a BIG thing to mere mortals)? Is it the thing we should ask for (it ain't from AIX, but if they saw we would go for it...)? If it was GPL, what would MS do? Any great hacks would have to be reverse engineered or accepted as missing features. It would be fun to watch money versus Freedom! If ViaVoice was GPL....well then we can watch it go into windows....what's the point?
GPL code is usable by everyone who is willing to use it! If you want to open the code further (i.e. allow it to be closed) then you can't. If you are willing to allow the code to be owned for eternity by it's users then you are sorted. If you can't enter into the GPL spirit you can stay outside and leave our code alone (tone provactive so sue me). Again, why should anyone be alllowed to close given away code (if it uses the code to provide function then it is not a unique invention, if it is a unique invention make it independant of any other code other than usable libraries).
Finally, I hate "Open Source". You can fuck off with it afaic. If it is Free (i.e. I can do what I want with it for myself, and give it to other people, and no-one can ever deny anyone any part of anything based on it) than I am happy, other wise get stuffed. I want software to be as good as everyone who is interested in it can make it. I don't want software that is as good as the current market environment allows.
Re:IBM (Score:2)
IBM supports Linux?? (Score:2)
Have you ever tried to install DB2 on a Debian box? It's possible, but only after a lot of tweaking, and, you are on your own... Probably the same is true for other non-RPM based distros.
On a web event done by IBM I asked for DB2 support for other distributions. They were kind enough to answer (that's good), but the answer was most disappointing.
I think this problem exists for evey IBM product for Linux.
So, my first whish is: Support for non RPM distributions, like oracle BTW.
I'd also like to see DB2 client libraries freed, so that DB2 could be easily (out of the box) supported be free software. Like gnome-db for instance.
Some suggestions for IBM and Linux (Score:2)
First, more device drivers for non-IBM hardware. IBM has made the fantastic decision to make its own hardware work with Linux. Could IBM use its superb business skills to persuade other hardware manufacturers to do the same?
Second, better documentation. IBM documentation tends to be very thorough and accurate. Linux documentation tends to be ... do I even have to say?
Third, an excellent GUI. Linux will never dominate the world if its presence on the desktop is insignificant. Developing an excellent GUI requires closeness with end users and top ergonomics skills--both of which IBM has in abundance.
Whatever IBM does though, let's be clear that we are extremely happy for it.
CASE, QA, and Software Engineering tools (Score:2)
At present, Linux relies too much on a Monte Carlo shotgun approach to software engineering (thousands of folks randomly hammering on software to shake the bugs out). What is lacking is the industrial strength support for formal engineering methods of design, testing, and QA. IBM has plenty of expertise in this area. My hope is that IBM will step in and plug the the hole.
Of course IBM's help in educating developers in the benefits of formal industrial strength development methods wouldn't hurt either. SGI has done some work in this area, offering a suite of regressions tests for the kernel. However, how many people know about them, how many actually use them?
Re:This article brings a long standing question to (Score:2)
Re:Shady Motives: Dosen't apply. (Score:2)
As linux is GPL'd, IBM could never do such a thing with it. I hope that IBM's motives are sincere, and I have no reason to think they neccesarily aren't... The comoditization of OS's may well be in their strateig favor, if they want to focus on being a hardware, and software, and services, provider.
The real results will speak for themselves. Either IBM will actually commit significant coding resources/assets to linux [necessarily under the GPL], or they won't. I of course hope for the latter.
---
man sig
Re:IBM supports Linux?? (Score:2)
Officially, many IBM products support SuSE, RedHat, Caldera, and TurboLinux.
The particular project I worked on was regression-tested on Debian as well.
IBM has people whose job it is to see that we aren't completely distribution specific.
(I don't speak as a representative for IBM, these are my own opinions based on my personal experience.)
A host is a host from coast to coast, but no one uses a host that's close
Linux group and the PC company Re:Device drivers? (Score:2)
Remember, in a great giant company, these two separate worlds may not see eye to eye.
I had the opportunity to speak to one of the higher-ups in the pc company, and he said to me that he's looking to linux, because they hate Microsoft, but that the community still appears small and splintered. (Look at how
The point is, Software Group is embracing Linux. PC company (which has been bleeding money for years) is scratching their heads wondering how to make a buck at it, like any good business should.
(I don't speak for IBM. my opinions are my own.)
A host is a host from coast to coast, but no one uses a host that's close
Re:Open hard drives (Score:2)
IBM's hardware dept. (PC company) has no such cred, yet.
Yes, the ignorant community may decide that because hardware follows the lemmings into a secure ATA standard (I don't want this either), that the whole company is evil, but this is far from the truth.
One portion of the company may not follow what the other portion of the company decides.
I don't speak for IBM.
A host is a host from coast to coast, but no one uses a host that's close
Re:But ViaVoice isn't part of AIX :) (Score:2)
http://alphaworks.ibm.com/aw.nsf/frame?ReadForm
ViaVoice, for linux with Java.
A host is a host from coast to coast, but no one uses a host that's close
Re:IBM's big on Linux... (Score:2)
It'll take an outside-of-IBM appeal to get a notes client for Linux, or a Hand-of-God from on high in IBM to make this happen.
(I don't speak for IBM, these are my own opinions.)
A host is a host from coast to coast, but no one uses a host that's close
X Windsows (Score:2)
And just for kicks call it YWindows as in: Why Windows?
Re:Ok (Score:2)
Why dont you correct them...? If that dosnt work: stop talking to them
No, no, no... (Score:2)
Watch out (Score:2)
However, I'm a long time user of both Linux and AIX. Linux from 386's to Beowulf clusters. AIX from tiny F40's up to 30-50 node range SP/2 complexes. I have an overall good view of IBM and their products. Here are the exceptions to that good view, and they are strong:
Re:Important [read: tough] things IBM could help w (Score:2)
Well, I know a product that may solve some of your interoperability problems. Look into bynari products here. [bynari.net]
The have client software for linux called 'TradeXCH' that will communicate with exchange and outlook. They also have their 'Trade Server' product which is a standards based suite of mail, directory and collaboration services.
Re:no to ATA copy protection - no to IBM (Score:2)
We as a community, and by that I mean all free software advocates - the BSD's, Linux, LPI, GNU, FSF, etc.. you name it, should unite and form a coalition against this new technology.
More specifically, Linux companies and organizations and their their respective leaders should pressure IBM to keep their hard drives open if they truly wish to be part of the open community that Linux represents. IBM may be a big company, but they would be stupid to alienate themselves from the very developers and support of the Linux community should they persist in making this new ATA spec a reality.
Re:How ungrateful are you? (Score:2)
Let me put it more concretely. Do you put every piece of discarded furniture someone offers you into your living room? Do you accept every "donation" to you of cute puppies and kittens from the humane society? Well, old proprietary code is like old furniture or stray kittens: it might fit your needs, it may be cute, but more often than not, you want to say "no" to maintain some room where you can live. There is nothing "ungrateful" about that, nor is there in telling them that you would prefer the black kitten over the puppy.
uselessness of IBM's linux/390 contributions (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:This article brings a long standing question to (Score:2)
IBM & Linux (Score:2)
Re:A better question: (Score:3)
Like I said, I work(ed) and will work at IBM on developing software for Linux. I got a chance to meet and talk w/ Jeff Smith, whose official position is VP of eBOSS (Electronic Business Operating Systems Solutions, I think) last summer during my first internship, and we discussed IBM's plans for Linux. I am active in two LUG's, as well as the Texas Tech ACM, and Jeff was able to come speak at Tech last semester. What did he talk about? IBM's plans for the future, wich seem to contain a heavy helping of Linux development and support. Why is IBM doing this? Because they're smarter than M$ insomuch as they realize that OSS
And they pay me to write GPL'd software. IBM kicks ass.
-Will the Chill
Legalize It.
Why is it when someone says "Open Source" (Score:3)
From the person who asked the question, showing his lack of knowledge:
"Robert LeBlanc, Vice President, Software Strategy, Software Solutions Division says both that IBM would open source any part of AIX and that we would be better off taking bits and pieces and the expertise that IBM bring along with it.
IBM is committed to Open Source where they think it makes a good business choice.
Yet, a whole group of people see Open Source and jump to the conclusion that means Linux. IBM has contributed to the BSD project (via the whistlejet)
It seems to me we have the offer on the plate from IBM to create a new joined project to bring Linux up another level if we can find a way from AIX. Surely we must take them up on this?"
What if IBM writes code that EVERYONE can use? Be they BSD, Linux, SCO, etc? Does this make them non "Open Source"? If IBM is truly an Open Source company they should consider making their code work with EVERYONE.
What is better to encourage IBM to do?
Ask them to release code for Linux, and pretend that is Open Source, *OR* ask them to make sure what they release is useable by EVERYONE who believes in Open Source code?
Quit shooting for the stars... (Score:3)
Networking scalability and redundancy, optimisation and facilities for database systems (as the jfs has started) or systems management applications?
Try and understand this from a business model. IBM has been around for an EXTREMELY long time (in computer years, I mean). They've survived longer than many computer companies (Packard Bell, for instance), and outlasted many
IBM doesn't want Linux just so it can become part of the "basement programmer Linux movement." The last thing they want is an anarchal OS that's being developed for EVERYTHING. Anything that's aimed for everything is looked on by a business as 1) Egotistical, and 2) Doomed to fail. (Yes, MS Windows is an exception, but there are always exceptions to the rule.)
IBM is going to want a target to shoot for. They want to get Linux and have someone tell them, "Market it towards the office. Here's why: It's free. Offices love free. All we need from you is to make it into a scalable office OS and you'll make money." Or..."Market it towards the Enterprise Server. It has remarkable scalability, is a Network OS, and all we need from you is
IBM's knocking on Linux's door. Don't let the opportunity get shot down. IBM's a business, while Linux was NOT developed under a business model. Find a bridge, and Linux will have the oportunity to join up with one of the biggest names in the computer industry.
Ok (Score:3)
On a more serious note, I'm not sure that IBM's contribution has to necessarily be directed at the OS itself. They could probably make good contributions to MySQL, maybe Apache, possibly a web broswer. These are things that, if this were Microsoft, would be thought of as components of the OS but are certainly necessary pieces if Linux is to make inroads on the desktop.
Given that they have loads of Unix experience I imagine they could help improve security as well. Linux is lacking in good GUI based security management. No doubt many Slashdotters are perfectly happy with CLI (I am) but 90 out of 100 SAs I talk to equate CLI with the 1980s.
Anyway, I'm not sure that the community needs to ask IBM for anything. Linux is given away free as in speech. I don't think it you can give software away for several years and then start asking for favors once companies have embraced it. This isn't to say that they don't have an ethical responsibility to give a little back, I'm just not sure that we should be the ones who decide what. If their past history is any indication (didn't they just open an FS?) they will no doubt make a contribution.
do as little to Linux as possible (Score:3)
We can't keep IBM from porting this stuff to Linux, but I hope major Linux distributions will have the good sense not to put it into the standard installations. I switched from AIX to Linux when I had the choice. There is virtue in being simpler: Linux was faster than AIX on slower hardware, it was more reliable, and it was simpler to use for server applications. If there is one thing I wouldn't mind seeing IBM contribute, it's their Fortran 90 compiler. Linux lacks a good, free, native Fortran 90 compiler right now. Beyond that, I can't think of anything in AIX that I would like in Linux.
And don't get confused about why companies like IBM and SGI are "donating" this stuff: they have a big legacy software problem, and they want to rid themselves of their albatrosses. This isn't "advanced technology" they are contributing for the good of the world, it's messy legacy functionality they want to get into a publically maintained software base so that they don't have to pay for software maintenance for their legacy customers. Most of the customers who want that stuff come from a different computing era and environment than Linux, and I suspect many of them will want to continue using proprietary software (meaning NT or Solaris).
Making software open in order to reduce development and systems integration costs is as good a motivation as any for contributing to open source software. But while it may be very attractive for a vendor to have such stuff added to the Linux kernel and OS, ultimately, the open source community may pay a steep cost in delayed releases and reduced usability as Linux gets ever more complex. Open source needs to be selective about what it accepts. Maybe Linus should start charging money for putting formerly commercial software into the kernel.
IBM has BIG plans for Linux (Score:5)
IBM has big plans for Linux, as I'm sure everyone knows. There is a Linux Technology Center in Austin, Texas. Many good people down there doing nothing but working on Linux. IBM also has many open source projects, most under the IBM Public License [ibm.com], at the developerworks [ibm.com] open source [ibm.com] site. And I'm sure there are many other things IBM is doing that I don't know about (I'm just an employee).
However, IBM is not a complete friend of Open Source, just yet. It took me over 4 months of constant effort to get approval to attempt to contribute to the Linux kernel, and even then I only have approval to modify 4 files!!! Let's not forget that IBM is, by *far*, the world leader in patents. There are many parts of IBM which use Linux and open source, but are very hesitant to contribute to open source.
That said, there are many good people in IBM who really do want to do good things. It's just not that easy to get paid by IBM to do them. But it is possible.
So, back to the question of what Linux can do for IBM. I know exactly what the community can do for IBM. Accept us. I have received a lot of resistance to any help I offer on mailing lists. Patches and comments are ignored. My initial contact with a certain kernel developement mailing list was met with...quite a bit of hesitation, to say the least. I think a lot of kernel developers are very skeptical of IBM employees. Maybe they think we're only sending patches or commenting/discussing so we can sell some product, and in some cases, they may be right. But please, don't assume someone should not be trusted just beacuse they have @us.ibm.com in their sig. Just because I get paid by IBM doesn't mean I don't want to help.
A better question: (Score:5)
If IBM is willing to cater to our needs, then how can we reciprocate?
The foundation of free software is sharing resources, ideas and solutions--helping the other guy get his job done--building a community out of relationships, not between programs but between people.
If IBM is serious about joining the community (and if any IBMers are reading this, let me say that I really hope you are), then we need to reciprocate their seriousness with seriousness of our own.
We need to seriously ask, what can we give IBM?
I think the more IBM sees a willingness from us to work with them, the more willing IBM will be to work with us.
Respect (Score:5)
In this light, I would only ask this of IBM: Sell a hundred million copies of Linux, especially to the big businesses. Show the commercial world that there are good alternatives to Windows. Do what ever it takes do this. Adding software will be a small part of the project, which you may not even have to write yourself, if you discuss your needs with us. Build your own distribution, sell commercial software on the side, build a world-wide support network, print manuals, what ever it takes. Make sure that when Linux reaches total world domination, a good part of it is IBM Linux.
Important [read: tough] things IBM could help with (Score:5)
What, you say? Isn't linux used on many supercomputer class systems, and heck, IBM even ported it to the S390! Well, yes... and no.
On clusters, linux is an excellent choice, due to it's efficiency and perhaps especially due to it's lack of licensing costs/hassels. But the key thing with clusters is that they are just that, clusters of workstation class machines. The `big'ness of them comes from the parallelism of many small machines working together, which it turns out is quite usefull for certain classes of a problems.
The S390 linux port is the same sort of thing. A massive big iron system, running hundreds of different simultanious copies of linux, each in it's own virtualized address space. Linux couldn't manage the resources and power of the entire machine, but as a 'process' in it, it does just fine; and this too is usefull, for say, consolidating what would otherwise have required rooms of rackmounts, with their own upkeep hassle, into one box [plus, cluster type applications can take advantage of the much faster [then ethernet] internal system bus for message passing, thus achieving comparatively much better performance then `real' clusters.
So, to make a long story short, what does linux really need? Big iron stuff: quality NUMA integrated into the memory management code [as a compile-time option, of course]. True support for high order SMP [say, 64 or 256 processors] and all that that requires [such as distributed kernel threads across multiple CPU's].
One of the problems, of course, is that adding this extra architecture into the kernel would slow it down on good old fashioned workstations, which is where linux is [currently] almost exclusively used [although that S390 thing rocks!].
---
man sig