RE: Cheaper Servers?

[James Rich <james@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 11 Apr 2002, DeLong, Eric wrote:

> James,
>
> You keep hitting on this point, but I don't see why this is the deal-breaker
> you imagine it to be.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but Linux itself does not
> directly support a graphical interface.  It uses a shell to implement the
> graphical environment.  As IBM continues to migrate OOPS Navigator into

The confusion here is using the words "graphical interface" where it
should be "graphical device".  Linux does directly support a graphical
device.  X11 directly supports a graphical device in concert with the
operating system.  OpenGL and Mesa directly support a graphical device in
concert with the operating system.  The linux framebuffer directly
supports a graphical device.

In order for X11 to switch the linux console from text only (or simple
framebuffer) to graphic display X must make a system to call to the linux
kernel to switch the hardware.  PC graphics cards work in two modes: text
only and graphic.  The kernel must make this switch and understand both
states.  X11 includes drivers for each make and model of graphics device,
but the kernel is what actually sends data to the graphics device.

OS/400 has no such ability.  There is no need for it:  you can't put a
graphics device in an iSeries anyway.

> Java, IBM could offer the laptop with two partitions, OS400 and Linux, with
> the Linux partition customized to use the laptop display and keyboard, just
> like you have on your desktop.  Linux partition uses TN5250 to access the
> OS400 partition.  IMO, this is an even better example of the flexibility and
> stability of iSeries architecture.

It is true that this could be done.  But then it would be linux that is
running your display, keyboard, and mouse - not OS/400.  It was suggested
to port applications from linux to OS/400.  Doing so would require that
you have linux installed to use those applications (since you would need
something to run the screen, mouse, and keyboard).  Why do the port from
linux to OS/400 if you have to have linux installed to use them?

If you want to put OS/400 or any operating on some architecture it only
makes sense to do so if the operating system can use the hardware on that
architecture.  Running linux in an LPAR in *not* using OS/400 to run the
hardware.

Even if support was added to OS/400 for PC hardware (specifically video
cards, keyboards, and mouse) it is still ridiculous to think that OS/400
on portable hardware would topple Microsoft's monopoly.

James Rich
james@eaerich.com