<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Crossed Wires &#187; Operating Systems</title>
	<atom:link href="http://veejoe.net/blog/category/operating-systems/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://veejoe.net/blog</link>
	<description>Vic's Blog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 26 Jul 2010 22:19:21 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>ppc Linux on the PowerMac G5</title>
		<link>http://veejoe.net/blog/2010/04/ppc-linux-on-the-powermac-g5/</link>
		<comments>http://veejoe.net/blog/2010/04/ppc-linux-on-the-powermac-g5/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 17 Apr 2010 23:42:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Vic</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Hardware]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Linux]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Operating Systems]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[apple]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fail]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[gentoo]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mac]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ppc]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://veejoe.net/blog/2010/04/ppc-linux-on-the-powermac-g5/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[With Apple&#8217;s abandonment of PPC as of Snow Leopard, I began wondering what to do with the old PowerMac. It&#8217;s annoying that so (comparatively) recent a piece of equipment should be given up by its manufacturer, but that&#8217;s a rant for another day. Yes, we can still run Leopard until it goes out of support, [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>With Apple&#8217;s abandonment of PPC as of Snow Leopard, I began wondering what to do with the old PowerMac. It&#8217;s annoying that so (comparatively) recent a piece of equipment should be given up by its manufacturer, but that&#8217;s a rant for another day. Yes, we can still run Leopard until it goes out of support, but with S and I both on MacBook Pros with current OS I know that we would both become frustrated with a widening functionality gap between the systems.</p>
<p>I had always resisted runing Linux on the PowerMac, thinking that the last thing I needed was yet another Linux box in the house. I had tried a couple of times, but it was in the early days of support for the liquid cooling system in the dual-2.5Ghz model and those attempts failed dismally. I figured that by now those issues would be resolved and I would have a much better time.</p>
<p>I assumed that Yellow Dog was still the &#8216;benchmark&#8217; PPC Linux distro, so I went to their site. I saw a lot of data there about PS3 and Cell; it seems that YDL is transitioning to the cluster and/or research market by focussing on Cell.</p>
<p>The next thing I discovered is the lack of distributions that have a PPC version, even as a secondary platform. My old standby Gentoo still supports PPC, as does Fedora (I think: I saw a reference to downloading a PPC install disk, bit didn&#8217;t follow it), but every other major distro has dropped it &#8212; openSUSE, for example, with their very latest release (their download page still has a picture of a disc labelled &#8220;ppc&#8221;, but no such download exists, oops). I guess that since the major producer of desktop PPC systems stopped doing so, the distros saw their potential install base disappear. Unfortunately for those distros, I can see the reverse happening: now that Apple has fully left PPC behind, plenty of folks like me who have moderately recent G4 and G5 hardware and who still want to run a current OS will come to Linux looking for an alternative&#8230; I guess time will tell who is right on this one.</p>
<p>So I went to install Gentoo, and to cut a long story short I had exactly the same problem as before: critical temperature condition leading to emergency system power-off. I found that if I capped the CPU speed to 2Ghz I could stay up long enough to get things built, but then the system refused to boot because it couldn&#8217;t find the root filesystem. Probably something to do with yaboot, SATA drives and OpenFirmware. So again I&#8217;m putting it aside.</p>
<p>My next plan was to treat it as a file server. Surely a BSD would support my G5 hardware: after all, Mac OS X is BSD at heart&#8230; Well, no. FreeBSD has no support for SATA on ppc, OpenBSD specifically mentioned liquid-cooled G5s as having no support, and I don&#8217;t think I saw any ppc support on NetBSD more recent than G3 [1].</p>
<p>This is one of the things that annoys me about the computer industry: that somehow it&#8217;s okay to so completely disregard your older releases. What if the automotive industry worked that way?</p>
<p>So I may yet try Fedora, or give the game away for another year or so and see what the situation looks like then.</p>
<p>[1] I may have mixed up a couple of these details.</p>
<p><strong><em>Edit</em></strong>: Gentoo&#8217;s yaboot has managed to make it so that I can&#8217;t boot Mac OS X on the machine any more.  Oh dear.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://veejoe.net/blog/2010/04/ppc-linux-on-the-powermac-g5/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Are we letting Microsoft define our industry?</title>
		<link>http://veejoe.net/blog/2008/03/are-we-letting-microsoft-define-our-industry/</link>
		<comments>http://veejoe.net/blog/2008/03/are-we-letting-microsoft-define-our-industry/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Mar 2008 01:28:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Vic</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Operating Systems]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Soapbox]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Linux]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[microsoft]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[windows]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://veejoe.net/blog/?p=371</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I&#8217;ve been trying to solve a problem at work for a few weeks now &#8212; one of those tricky &#8220;it&#8217;s only software so it shouldn&#8217;t be this hard&#8221; sort-of problems for which you know the solution is just a matter of putting the right bits and pieces together. At work, I&#8217;m more-or-less forced into using [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ve been trying to solve a problem at work for a few weeks now &#8212; one of those tricky &#8220;it&#8217;s only software so it shouldn&#8217;t be this hard&#8221; sort-of problems for which you know the solution is just a matter of putting the right bits and pieces together. At work, I&#8217;m more-or-less forced into using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (the distro <a href="http://www.redhatmagazine.com/2008/02/04/tips-and-tricks-rhel-ref/">formerly known as RHEL</a>), and one of the pieces I&#8217;m looking at is <a href="http://www.openldap.org">OpenLDAP</a>.</p>
<p>My first stage in the process was to get OpenLDAP set up with the right config &#8212; but when I started it, slapd complained about an error in slapd.conf. The overlay I was trying to use, it claimed, was not found. I spent the next couple of hours trying to find additional packages, trying different things, reading doco, searching Google, to no avail. The overlay I want is missing from Red Hat&#8217;s build of OpenLDAP.</p>
<p>So &#8220;boo hoo&#8221;, you say, &#8220;just build from source&#8221;. Well, remember how I said I was forced into RHEL? The corollary to that is that I am only allowed to use <em>exactly</em> what the Shadowman ships on the DVD. No build-from-source, no other OSS, is allowed.</p>
<p>But what does any of this have to do with Microsoft?</p>
<p>In my research, I found the release notes for Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5. In it was the following text (highlighting mine):<br />
<em><br />
OpenLDAP Server and Red Hat Directory Server<br />
Red Hat Directory Server is an LDAP-based server that centralizes enterprise and network data into an OS-independent, network-based registry. It is set to replace OpenLDAP server components, which <b>will be deprecated</b> </em>after<em> Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5. For more information about Red Hat Directory Server, refer to http://www.redhat.com/software/rha/directory/.<br />
</em></p>
<p>You guessed it: Red Hat Directory Server is a pay-for product. So Red Hat&#8217;s setting a direction here: server platforms comprising only the base OS, and additional function provided through extra-cost modules &#8212; now where have we seen this before?</p>
<p>Does this now mean that on RHEL-next, in order to run a Samba server with an LDAP IDMAP backend, companies will have to pay for RDS? That won&#8217;t fly at my work: &#8220;we already have a corporate directory, we&#8217;re not paying for another&#8221; will the customer sayeth. </p>
<p>&#8220;Okay&#8221;, you say, &#8220;so don&#8217;t use Red Hat&#8221;. As far as I&#8217;m allowed (this is at my employer remember) the only other choice is SLES&#8230; from Novell&#8230; that organisation that felt the need to cross-licence with Microsoft to &#8220;protect&#8221; against undisclosed and unproven patent infringement.</p>
<p>(Note that this post is not about Novell-Microsoft, nor is their deal a reason not to use SLES in my opinion. The thought only popped into my head because I was already thinking about Microsoft as a result of the Red Hat thing with RDS.)</p>
<p>So it seems like the two biggest names in corporate Linux are marching to Microsoft&#8217;s drum. Have I misread something? Am I overreacting?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://veejoe.net/blog/2008/03/are-we-letting-microsoft-define-our-industry/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>OpenSolaris on System z</title>
		<link>http://veejoe.net/blog/2007/12/opensolaris-on-system-z/</link>
		<comments>http://veejoe.net/blog/2007/12/opensolaris-on-system-z/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Dec 2007 13:21:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Vic</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Operating Systems]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[opensolaris]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[z/VM]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://veejoe.net/blog/?p=561</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It&#8217;s all the rage on YouTube, apparently&#8230;&#160;&#160;posting video of a z/VM system booting something.&#160;&#160;Only kidding, this is a good piece of tech.&#160;&#160;If you search YouTube for &#8220;OpenSolaris System z&#8221; you&#8217;ll find a set of five videos that show an interview (recorded at the recent Gartner datacentre conference) with David Boyes of Sine Nomine Associates demonstrating [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s all the rage on YouTube, apparently&#8230;&nbsp;&nbsp;posting video of a z/VM system booting something.&nbsp;&nbsp;Only kidding, this is a good piece of tech.&nbsp;&nbsp;If you search YouTube for &#8220;OpenSolaris System z&#8221; you&#8217;ll find a set of five videos that show an interview (recorded at the recent Gartner datacentre conference) with David Boyes of Sine Nomine Associates demonstrating OpenSolaris running on an IBM System z mainframe.&nbsp;&nbsp;It&#8217;s a great achievement, and a fine piece of work &#8212; but there&#8217;s a catch.</p>
<p>I can&#8217;t stress enough what a great job David, Neale (Aussie, Aussie, Aussie!), Adam and everyone at SNA have done.&nbsp;&nbsp;Networking is not there yet, but I trust it&#8217;s not far (need a hand fellas? (: ).&nbsp;&nbsp;It must have been a hard slog, and for some (particularly Neale) perhaps brought some unpleasant memories (anyone remember Bigfoot?).&nbsp;&nbsp;Congratulations are deserved.&nbsp;&nbsp;I can see the lolcat now: <i>I IS SUN. IM IN UR MANEFRAYM, KIKIN OUT YR PENGUINZ.&nbsp;&nbsp;YA RLY!</i>&nbsp;&nbsp;Only joking!</p>
<p>The catch is, ironically, the aspect of the port that makes it most useful in the &#8220;real&#8221; world.&nbsp;&nbsp;The guys have made the port dependent on z/VM.&nbsp;&nbsp;Don&#8217;t get me wrong, it&#8217;s the right thing to do &#8212; without z/VM, you can&#8217;t play to the strengths of the System z platform and it&#8217;s capabilities for massive resource sharing in a virtualisation environment.&nbsp;&nbsp;Many believe that Linux on System z should have been taken in the same direction, as other platforms (like System p) do big-single-Linux-footprint better than what System z does.</p>
<p>The twist is that by tying the OpenSolaris port to z/VM, they&#8217;ve eliminated a set of would-be hackers from contributing to the effort.&nbsp;&nbsp;Those with motivation, time, skill, and a big Intel box who can get a couple of hundred MIPS out of Hercules.</p>
<p>There are, rightly or wrongly, a <b>lot</b> of people who think that Solaris is a good platform.&nbsp;&nbsp;These are the kind of people I&#8217;m thinking of &#8212; maybe folks who have always derided the mainframe, but perhaps are now thinking &#8220;gee, well if it runs Solaris now, it can&#8217;t be all bad.&nbsp;&nbsp;Maybe I&#8217;ll check it out&#8221;.</p>
<p>Obviously I can&#8217;t speak for Sun (nor for IBM or SNA), but I&#8217;m sure I read that one of the objectives of OpenSolaris was to get Solaris into more hands and to try and benefit from the &#8220;millions of set of eyes&#8221; effect that Linux enjoys.&nbsp;&nbsp;It seems ironic then that the first &#8220;non-Sun&#8221; platform to which OpenSolaris has been ported is one that doesn&#8217;t contribute to that goal.</p>
<p>Not to worry.&nbsp;&nbsp;David at SNA has stated that they are committed to releasing their work to the community.&nbsp;&nbsp;This will be the point at which an interested party could look at the code and potentially rip out or rewrite the z/VM-specific bits and replace them.&nbsp;&nbsp;It wouldn&#8217;t be impossible &#8212; even CMS was able to IPL standalone once upon a time &#8212; but it would be a huge piece of work (no doubt part of SNA&#8217;s reasoning was to let z/VM do a lot of heavy lifting for I/O and such tasks; that would have to be written for OpenSolaris).&nbsp;&nbsp;Bags I not-it.&nbsp;&nbsp;Likewise, our potential interested party would be very likely to turn away to Linux&#8230; or even away from System z entirely.</p>
<p>Meh, enough doom-talk.&nbsp;&nbsp;I&#8217;ve downloaded three different flavours of OpenSolaris for x86 (<b>NexentaOS</b> which I had a brief look at previously, <b>Solaris Express Developer Edition</b>, and something that called itself the &#8220;Indiana Preview&#8221;) and I&#8217;m running them in VMware to have a poke around (but not all at the same time, they need a heap of memory).</p>
<p>I&#8217;ll be following this as close as I can (or as close as I&#8217;m allowed).&nbsp;&nbsp;I think it will be really interesting to see how this progresses.&nbsp;&nbsp;Good luck to all involved (and if you need a hand guys&#8230; <img src='http://veejoe.net/blog/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif' alt=';-)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://veejoe.net/blog/2007/12/opensolaris-on-system-z/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Rebooting my belief system</title>
		<link>http://veejoe.net/blog/2006/03/rebooting-my-belief-system/</link>
		<comments>http://veejoe.net/blog/2006/03/rebooting-my-belief-system/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Mar 2006 13:41:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Vic</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Linux]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Operating Systems]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Soapbox]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[systemz]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[virtualisation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[z/VM]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://veejoe.net/blog/?p=1741</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I&#8217;ve been away from SHARE for far too long.  It&#8217;s really great to hear positive things about Linux on zSeries again, rather than the crap I have to put up with at home. In Australia, there is no evangelism of zSeries.  There&#8217;s an attitude bordering on arrogance that seems to say &#8220;we&#8217;re not going to explain zSeries [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ve been away from SHARE for far too long.  It&#8217;s really great to hear positive things about Linux on zSeries again, rather than the crap I have to put up with at home.</p>
<p>In Australia, there is no evangelism of zSeries.  There&#8217;s an attitude bordering on arrogance that seems to say &#8220;we&#8217;re not going to explain zSeries to you; if you don&#8217;t know you want it already then you&#8217;re not worth it&#8221;.  At least that&#8217;s what it looks like to me.</p>
<p>I&#8217;m surrounded by people who think that all problems can be solved by installing an xSeries or pSeries machine.  Maybe some can be, but IMHO they&#8217;ll be replacing one set of problems with another (possibly greater) set.</p>
<p>Anyway, it&#8217;s nice to hear different stories &#8212; like a company whose IT costs went from 1.7% to 0.9% of sales by migrating their ENTIRE server farm (including about a dozen p690s) to a z990 running Linux.  Like a company that has placed 250 Linux server guests onto z/VM inside a year, freezing acquisition of new discrete servers.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://veejoe.net/blog/2006/03/rebooting-my-belief-system/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
