Practical Technology

for practical people.

August 2, 2002
by sjvn01
0 comments

Caldera Buys SCO Unix & Professional Services

It’s the beginning of a new era and the end of an old one. Last night, Caldera, a leading Linux distributor, bought the Server (Unix) and Professional Services Division of Santa Cruz Operations (SCO), the long-standing leader of Intel Unix. With this single move, Linux and Unix are unified for the first time under one company. The enterprise operating system world will never be the same.As reported earlier by Smart Partner , the two companies have been close to a deal for weeks. In the end, Caldera gained not only the Unix-on-Intel Server Software Division–which consists of UnixWare and OpenServer along with SCO’s existing reseller partnerships and contracts in SCO’s traditional global markets of small and midsize businesses, retail, telecommunications and government–but also the Professional Services division, as well.

This Professional Services division provides consulting, support and installation/integration support to both direct customers and SCO’s partners. This division, under Jim Wilt, current president of the SCO Professional Services division, will operate as a separate business unit of Caldera.

As for joining together time-tested Unix and low-cost, open-source Linux, Caldera states that it offer the industry’s first comprehensive Open Internet Platform (OIP) combining Linux and UNIX server solutions and services globally. Specifically, that will include Caldera’s Linux line and SCO’s OpenServer and UnixWare lines. The combined OIP product line will be unveiled at SCO’s premier partner show, Forum2000, on Aug. 23 and made available through SCO and Caldera’s existing 15,000 worldwide partners.

The Fine Print

Caldera Systems is forming a new holding company, Caldera Inc., to acquire the two divisions. This deal includes those division’s employees, products and channel resources.

In the deal, SCO will receive 28 percent of Caldera Inc. This is estimated to be an aggregate of approximately 17.54 million shares of Caldera stock (including approximately 2 million SCO options shares reserved for SCO employees joining Caldera), and $7 million in cash. Simultaneously, Ray Noorda’s venture capital firm, The Canopy Group, Caldera Systems’ major stockholder, has agreed to loan $18 million to SCO. Presuming that Caldera, Inc.’s stock is valued at $5.00 a share–the average price of Caldera Systems and SCO stock before the market opens on Aug. 2–the deal is worth approximately $84 million in stock for a total, not counting the loan, of $91 million.

SCO also will retain its highly valued Tarantella, a popular application service provider (ASP) division, and the SCO OpenServer revenue stream and intellectual properties. In the last quarter, SCO OpenServer revenue amounted to $11.1 million. After expenses, the net proceeds to SCO will be approximately 55 percent of future SCO OpenServer revenues. The investment banks of Chase H&Q for SCO and Broadview for Caldera Systems helped arrange the deal.

Both firms’ boards of directors have unanimously approved the acquisition. The final decision is subject to the approval of Caldera Systems and SCO’s stockholders. If all goes well, the deal should close in October 2000.

Caldera Inc. will be headquartered in Orem, Utah. Following the acquisition, Ransom Love, current president and CEO of Caldera Systems, will become CEO of Caldera Inc.; and David McCrabb, current president of the SCO Server Software Division, will become president and COO of Caldera Inc. Finally, Doug Michels, president and CEO of SCO will become a member of Caldera Inc.’s board of directors.

A View From The Top

Leadership at both companies is happy about the deal. Love described the deal as an “industry-changing event that puts Caldera front and center as the answer to the enterprise question.” For those who might worry about what this means for their existing SCO operating systems, he states that “Caldera is fully committed to supporting and servicing the SCO OpenServer and UnixWare communities.”

David McCrabb elaborates on Love’s statements saying that “Caldera Inc. will incorporate a worldwide network of sales and support offices, a strong commercial Unix system business and a rapidly growing open-source company. This combination will be a force to contend with in the worldwide market for Internet solutions on high volume platforms.”

As for what remains of SCO, Tarantella, Michels believes that, “this transaction enables us to invest in the exciting growth opportunities … by the continued attractiveness of thin-client computing and by the accelerating adoption of the ASP” model.

The Reaction

Some are welcoming the change with open arms. Many believe that uniting Unix with Linux can only strengthen Linux’s rising tide. According to IDC, Linux has 1.4 million server licenses, far more than all Unixes put together, but SCO’s servers are located in the core of many older businesses. While Linux’s strength is on the Internet, SCO still runs many small to midsize businesses, governmental departments and vertical markets.

From a Caldera supporter’s viewpoint, Caldera gets a strong foothold in traditional brick-and-mortar businesses while maintaining the place in the Linux e-commerce and Internet strongholds. In addition, Caldera gets access to an outstanding, albeit somewhat ragged after the difficult ties of the last year, reseller channel.

Some people, including one senior executive at a disenchanted SCO reseller, however, don’t think Caldera will be getting much of a deal. He says that, “Anyone who has attended the last few SCO Forums can tell you that the SCO channel has just about disappeared. The combination of competition from NT, the attempt to force Open Server customers to convert to UnixWare and direct selling by SCO has just about killed off every VAR and integrator.”

Others–such as David Gloria, SCO Premier Reseller with Computer Integrators and president of Ixorg, an organization of SCO resellers–are more optimistic. Gloria believes “that the real value that Caldera will get from the deal is not the UNIX name, not the customer base, not even the technologies. It is the Reseller Channel.”

At this early stage, Caldera certainly shows every sign of supporting the channel. Caldera Systems will join SCO in hosting Forum2000, SCO’s premier partnership event starting on Aug. 20 at the University of California, Santa Cruz. The company also plans to unveil its updated product offering at the show.

Chris Clabaugh, Allegix’s CEO, agrees that the signs look good, “I view the [proposed] SCO/Caldera mix to be a good thing for customers like us.” He believes that because the “consolidation of operating-system platforms choices will mean simpler product choices for both customers and channel partners.” Still, he thinks that the deal also needs to result in “the combination of SVR 3/4/5 enterprise features with Linux” to be a real success.

Red Hat CEO Matthew Szulik would agree with that, although in a harsher manner. “This validates what we and the IDC numbers have been saying all along about the death of the proprietary Unix market. As advocates of open source, we look forward to Caldera’s support of open sourcing SCO’s proprietary Unix technology to the entire open-source community.”

Still, Caldera’s path isn’t one that Red Hat would choose. Szulik goes on to say that, “Red Hat has made nine acquisitions in nine months–nine acquisitions that emphasize our focus on new and emerging markets. We believe that our focus on these markets, rather than the rehabilitation of old markets, is what will help Red Hat continue its role as a leading innovator in the open-source technology industry.”

The lines are drawn. Only time, and the marketplace, will tell whether the marriage of Unix and Linux will be a happy one.

Why SCO Made The Deal

Frankly, SCO had little choice but to make some kind of deal. While according to IDC’s research manager for system software Al Gillen SCO is the leading Unix distributor holding 37 percent of the Unix market with 313,000 software license shipments in 1999, compared to Sun’s 22 percent of the market, SCO and the Server division were still losing money hand over fist.

While the Server division, according to Doug Michels in his third quarter report to stockholders, accounted for 92 percent of the company’s total revenue, SCO was in deep trouble. In its just reported third quarter 2000, revenues had dropped to an alarming $26,931,000, from $57,060,000 for the same quarter last year. Even more painful, the net loss for the quarter was $19,240,000, or $0.54 per share, compared with a net profit of $4,535,000, or $0.13 per share.

The picture didn’t get any brighter from a broader perspective. The overall revenues for the nine-month period ending June 30, 2000, were $116,126,000, compared with $165,504,000 for the same period in fiscal 1999. The net loss for this period was $36,174,000, or $1.02 per share, basic and diluted, compared with a profit of $11,483,000, or $0.33 per share, basic and $0.32 per share. Anyone could foresee what would happen next: By July 31, SCO stock reached a near all-time low of 3 and an eighth.

SCO’s financials really had only one silver lining: Tarantella. While the Professional Services division showed a slight dip, Michels commented that “We were particularly pleased to see that the Tarantella division was able to increase revenues by 59 percent from the prior quarter.”

Outside observers thought SCO’s financial troubles were due to several factors. Michael Foster, VP of marketing for ASP infrastructure provider and SCO customer Allegrix Inc., and former SCO director of communications, comments that, “It could be that SCO’s caught in a perfect storm of their own. … The Linux front, combined with the Windows2000 front, combined with the Internet e-business front [IBM, Solaris, etc] all of which has SCO bobbing up and down.”

Dan Kusnetzky, VP for system software research for IDC, thinks that part of the problem was that, “Unix is a mature market. SCO is trying to transform their business and it was in their other two divisions, Professional Services and Tarantella, that they still have a good chance at growth.”

Another problem with the Unix division was that, while technically SCO Unix products were excellent, Kusnetzky also comments that, “SCO was in the middle of a three-front marketing war with Linux moving into their bread-and-butter of low-end systems, Solaris moving down into IA-64 and Windows 2000.” He also noted that while SCO is the leading Unix provider that because they let the SCO brand disappear underneath customers’ names like Compaq and Oracle, so that few people actually knew they were running SCO operating systems.

Michels, on the other hand, put the blame for SCO’s fall on the impact of last year’s Y2K problem. He said that, “It had quite an impact on our business. And, were slowly, much more slowly than expected, gaining business back.” But, he also admitted that, “The Internet, Web-centric, ASP models and Linux are starting to have an impact on the industry and will continue to do so in the future.”

The future turned out to be only a few days away.

First Published in Ziff-Davis’ Sm@rt Partner

July 26, 2002
by sjvn01
0 comments

Can Linux do Web Services?

Is Linux ready to move beyond file and Web servers to application and Web services servers? The answer, if IBM has anything to do with it, is an unqualified yes

IBM has been a major Linux supporter for years. And, with the arrival of UnitedLinux, both IBM’s internal programming efforts and its independent software vendor (ISV) partners will have much less trouble and spend less money porting and building Linux applications.

Given all this, it should come as no surprise that of the more than 300 IBM middleware products available, more than 50 are now available on Linux on IBM’s Intel-based xSeries servers and 20 are ready to go on the mainframe zSeries.

IBM’s WebSphere, its Java 2 Enterprise Edition (J2EE) application server and leading middleware product, has long been available on Linux for the X and Z series, and is in late beta on the iSeries (formerly the AS/400 line) and the pSeries (also known as the RS/6000 line). WebSphere on these platforms is expected to be available in the first quarter of 2003, with the iSeries version appearing first.

Other core IBM middleware products — its DB2 database offering, Domino, and the MQSeries — are also already available on the X and Z lines. Simultaneously, IBM ISV partners — such as AccPac, Computer Associates, Sage, SAP, and SAS — either have brought their business applications and middleware products to IBM’s Linux lines or are in the process of doing so.

Why are they bringing their middleware to all these different platforms? The simple answer is that different customers have different needs. Adam Jollans, IBM’s Linux strategy manager, says a small shop or a decentralized company might go with the xSeries, whereas a larger company that’s comfortable with centralized computing might go with the midrange iSeries or mainframe zSeries.

The one platform that isn’t getting much attention is the pSeries. While acknowledging that most RS/6000 administrators are happy with the more mature AIX 5L, Jollans says IBM plans to bring its middleware offerings to Linux on this platform as well. He foresees a day when Linux-only shops will want to move to the eight-way processing power of the pSeries, and they’ll want to take their Linux middleware-based applications with them.

Jollans says customers want enterprise middleware on Linux for workload consolidation, server consolidation, and Web applications. “Two to three years ago, it was technical people wanting Linux for file and Web servers,” he says. “Now it’s IT managers and CIOs looking for a good, stable operating system and middleware.” Cost is another consideration. “Time and time again our customers are looking at Linux as a way to save money,” Jollans says. “Rarely do other options come to play.”

Ed Lynch, IBM’s Linux systems manager, says another long-term driver is making IT departments look to Linux middleware. “What keeps CIOs up at night? ‘I’ve got too much work to do and not enough bodies to do it.’ So where are people with skills and what skills do they have? There’s a natural wave to ride on and that’s Linux,” he says.

Another reason, according to Dan Kusnetzky, IDC vice president for system software research, is that IBM sees Linux as an emerging market. With little additional effort, he says, IBM can move its AIX efforts to Linux while supporting Linux unification. “With this, IBM can ride Linux into new markets and into places where IBM hasn’t been able to get into for years.” Kusnetzky considers this Linux strategy a wise move because for IBM, “the more platforms it can play on, the more revenue it can attain.”

Exactly how much revenue IBM gets from Linux middleware (and Linux in general) is almost impossible to determine. IBM refuses to reveal exact revenues generated from its famous billion-dollar investment in Linux and AIX. Kusnetzky believes that AIX drives most of the revenue, but that in two to three years, Linux and its middleware will be IBM’s most profitable line. Who else is backing Linux

IBM isn’t the only big software vendor to throw its weight behind Linux.

Oracle is also making a big Linux middleware push. While IBM is essentially working with two major Linux vendors (UnitedLinux and Red Hat), Oracle and Red Hat are working hand-in-glove in a three-way play in which Dell provides hardware, Red Hat develops an Oracle-friendly Linux (Red Hat Advanced Server), and Oracle adds Real Application Clusters and support for Red Hat’s clustering file system to its Oracle 9i database. In this way, the three companies can give customers a complete package of hardware, operating system, and middleware — just as IBM and Sun already do.

Hewlett-Packard is also making a hard enterprise Linux push. But after being one of the first to embrace Linux middleware, HP appears to be moving out of the middleware business. Sun is also quickly moving into Linux middleware. In early February, Ed Zander, COO and president for Sun at the time, announced that Sun will port “the entire Sun Open Network Environment (ONE) implementation to Linux.”

Pure application server companies are also on the Linux bandwagon. For example, BEA Systems’ new high-end Java Virtual Machine, WebLogic Jrockit, runs on Linux as does WebLogic Server 7, the company’s flagship J2EE application server.

It’s not just about Linux

The move to Linux middleware represents a true change, says IDC’s Kusnetzky, and in the end helps to unify the Unix platform. “HP is talking about how HP-UX will be able to run Linux applications; so is Sun with Solaris,” he says. “ISVs are going to be asking themselves, ‘Why should I bother to develop for a specific Unix if I can develop for Linux and it will run on almost all Unix platforms?'” Kusnetzky says that IBM is smart in betting big that Linux will become the universal enterprise Unix platform of tomorrow.

Not only are IBM, Oracle, and other middleware vendors embracing Linux, they’re also embracing J2EE — almost all Linux middleware products are based on J2EE application servers. This isn’t an about-face, but it does form a strong bond between Linux and J2EE.

One could even argue, as Kusnetzky does, that CIOs decide what database and middleware they need before they decide which operating system to support, rather than vice versa. “You don’t want to lock yourself into hardware and operating systems, because that only makes it harder to migrate as technology improves,” he explains. This approach is especially safe considering that middleware development has largely divided into two camps: Net supporters (Microsoft) and J2EE supporters (everyone else).

A version of this story was first published in ZDNet.

July 23, 2002
by sjvn01
0 comments

Warp Speed! 10-Gigabit Ethernet is on its way

When Bob Metcalfe was working for Xerox at its Palo Alto Research Center (PARC), his problem was how to create a network that would enable PARC computers to use the world’s first laser printer. His answer, summarized in a May 22, 1973 memo, was to create Ethernet running at 2.94Mbps. No one knew that Ethernet would become the most popular LAN technology around.

Fast-forward to 2002, and major Ethernet companies researchers and engineers are readying the final version of the 10-gigabit Ethernet (10GbE) standard.Today, 10GbE is a reality, after its IEEE standard IEEE 802.3ae was finally approved in early June. Cisco, Extreme Networks, Foundry Networks and Nortel are already shipping in trial runs, pre-standard 10GbE equipment and the June Supercomm show featured two dozen companies showing it doing its stuff.

Even before it was approved, the technology was already being used in some products. This is because, Val Oliva L2/3 product marketing manager for Foundry and member of the 10 Gigabit Ethernet Alliance (GEA) Board of Directors, explains, ‘It was designed this way because the development of 802.3ae is built upon an ‘alliance,’ which includes vendors from chip to system vendors. No other standard body (GEA) has ever performed a task that created a standard, ensure that there is a working form of the standard, and ensured that there is “inter-operations” of the standard.” In short, 802.3ae was meant for pre-standard, early adoption.

10GbE isn’t you dad’s Ethernet though. For starters, it only runs on fiber-optic at this time. Besides simply running at 10Gbps, 10GbE also has traditional Ethernet’s Media Access Control (MAC) protocol and its frame format, minimum and maximum frame size. However, since 10GbE is full-duplex only-there is no half-duplex option-Carrier Sense Multiple Access/Collision Detection (CSMA/CD) isn’t needed or implemented. In addition, 10GbE works only on optical fibre. Besides being faster, 10GbE has greater range than its ancestors. The 10GBASE-EW version can reach up to 40 kilometers.

Don’t look to deploy10GbE from your client’s office wiring closet to their desktops anytime soon. The office still belongs to Ethernet and Fast Ethernet. No, according to the GEA white paper, 10GbE Overview White Paper, 10GbE will server as a backbone switch to switch and server to switch technology that will enable administrators to extend gigabit to the desktop. This will greatly enhance applications such as videoconferencing, streaming video, high-end graphics and medical imaging.

Seamus Crehan, senior analyst for the Dell’Oro Group, also thinks that, “Storage Area Networks (SANs) could be a really big application market for 10GbE. Indeed, Adaptec, Intel, HP, and QLogic engineers think that Internet small computer system interface (iSCSI) could be used to transport data I/O over 10GbE-borne IP.

Where many 10GbE proponents really see 10GbE coming into its own though is outside of Ethernet’s traditionally stronghold of LANs in the wider world of metropolitan area network (MAN)s and wide area network (WAN). In this arena, a unified, Ethernet-based network topology, could ease network management and reduce network-related costs. According to Bruce Tolley, VP of GEA and manager of emerging technologies for Cisco, 10GbE reduces the need for non-Ethernet technologies like ATM and “leverages the installed base of 250 million Ethernet ports” making Ethernet cheaper than other transport technologies and “In the end, economics always matter.”

Will this new Ethernet make the grade? Crehan thinks so; “It will be very successful in LANs and very likely to be highly successful in MANs and WANs.”

The Why of 10GbE

According to Crehan, what’s driving 10 GbE’s development is that since “Ethernet has become an extremely prevalent technology, because it’s inexpensive and easy to use, 10GbE was just the next evolutionary step. Although there isn’t a huge amount of bandwidth drivers now, as Gigabit switches become more prevalent, 10GbE will come up.” He goes on, “people can’t wait until the bottleneck exists, they need to work on standards today.” Thus, 10GbE was a “forward thinking move.”

On the WAN and beyond service providers will be able to have entire networks running on Ethernet, thereby creating a unified network topology. Oliva point blanks says that 10GbE is meant “to push Ethernet in the MAN and WAN, everywhere. In the end, Ethernet will dominate L2, just like IP dominated L3.”

Frits Reip, Senior Product Marketing Manager for Nortel, also has said that 10GbE will have a 84% interface cost saving over SONET and will giving a savings of 30 to 60% per user over other managed network services. In the end, 10GbE adoption will be as much driven by market performance as throughput performance.

10GbE Technology

Besides the technical differences mentioned earlier, 10GbE also differ from its forefathers in two significant ways. The first is that the optical transceiver or physical medium dependent (PMD) interface for single mode fiber that will work with both the LAN physical layer (PHY) or WAN PHY.

This has caused some people to think that there are two different kinds of 10GbE. That’s not true. Oliva says, “There’s one version and it’s 802.3ae. There are several 802.3ae PMDs (Physical Media Dependent) and they are classified into two categories: WAN PMDs (“W”) and LAN PMDs (“R”).

Another point of difference is that if you go with the WAN PHY option, you transparently transport 10GbE over existing SONET OC-192c fibre. This optional PHY incorporates a simple, inexpensive SONET framer and operates at a data rate compatible with OC-192’s 9.953Gbps speed. The long and short of this OC-192 compatible asynchronous Ethernet interface is that it will enable service providers to seamlessly run 10GbE over existing OC-192 compatible fibre and transponders.

Or, you could even, as Richard Cunningham, a Cahners In-Stat analyst, points out, “run SONET on some wavelengths on a single fiber and run 10-GE on other wavelengths on the same fiber, as long as you don’t have optical amplifiers in the chain.”

Most of 10GbE runs over single fibre optics, but one type, LX4 PMD, is based on Wide Wave Division Multiplexing (WWDM). LX4 uses four wavelengths of light over a single pair of fiber optic cables. With this, the four wavelengths are “bonded” to create 10 Gigabit speeds.

One advantage that 10GbE has over SONET and other optical technologies is that it can be run on dark fibre. Dark fibre is the unused capacity available on dense wave division multiplexing (DWDM) equipment. By making use of this untapped resource, 10GbE will enable service providers to get more use out of their existing fibre.

New Uses For a New Ethernet

Oliva sees the MAN and WAN as 10GbE’s destination. “The challenges for Ethernet’s acceptance into the MAN and WAN are several, and the 802.3ae (10 Gigabit Ethernet) resolves two of those challenges – bandwidth and distance. To move Ethernet’s into the ‘final frontier,’ which is WAN, it needs to make sure that those challenges are knocked off. There’s more challenges, but 802.3ae is a move in the right direction.”

Tolley, agrees writing “with 10 Gigabit Ethernet backbone networks, service providers will be able to offer native 10/100/1000 Mbps Ethernet as a public service to customers, namely offering the customer twice the bandwidth of the fastest public MAN services OC-3 (155 Mbps) or OC-12 (622 Mbps) with no need for the added complexity of SONET or ATM and no need for protocol conversion.” But, the LAN is also important. He notes that 10GbE switches will be used for server interconnect, campus backbones, and aggregating Gigabit switches.

From the outside looking in, Crehan agrees for the most part, but he also cautions that
“There’s already a large, recent installed base of SONET equipment and service providers aren’t looking to junk that anytime soon.”

Crehan also expects that “many switches will have multiple interfaces ATM to OC48 to 10GbE.” In any case, “you won’t see companies fork-lifting new equipment in.” Instead “service providers, who are already trying to squeeze out as much revenue out of what equipment they already have,” will gradually migrate to 10GbE.

He sees the first “significant volume deployment will be dependent on the enterprise as LAN backbone and maybe dark fibre in campus situations.” But, the “price needs to be more attractive then it is right now.”

At first, the prices won’t be that alluring. Crehan says that the first prices you’ll see will be from “20K to 90K list price per port on 10GbE with the shorter reach will be much cheaper than the long reach versions. At 10K distances,” for example, he says, you’ll see: 70 to 80 grand today.” But he expects, “aggressive price drops of from 30 to 40% price will be seen quickly. We’re very early now, but as more vendors come in the prices will continue drop aggressively. On a dollars per gigabit, at least as cheap as gigabit Ethernet.” He thinks that soon you’ll “see a single 10-gigabit Ethernet port at prices that will be price comparable to 10 1-gigabit ports.” By 2005, he expects 10GbE to have become a billion-dollar market.

Quality of service (QoS) is also a concern. Cunningham says, “SONET offers a good deal of redundancy, up to and including a full restoration path, so that the system can sense a path failure, and then reroute the signal to the destination via another path with 50 milliseconds. The 50-ms figure, also known as latency, is a carryover from voice traffic; if someone’s speech is broken up in chunks and shipped from here to there with more than a 50-ms differential delay, the result is garbled to the human ear.” Ethernet on its own, plain old Ethernet or 10GbE, doesn’t have that kind of redundancy. Some question though remains as to whether 10GbE needs these kinds of voice-carrier QoS features.

Some observers also wonder whether even at 10Gbps whether 10GbE is fast enough for the long run. A few of them cite OC-3072 SONET, which would run at 160 Gbits per second, as an example of a technology that would blow 10GbE’s doors off. Cunningham replies, “Don’t hold your breath for OC-3072. That’s a long way in the future. Granted, Lucent and the Heinrich-Hertz-Institut in Berlin will be doing some experimental work on in-ground fiber near Darmstadt this summer, but it’s hard to imagine any 160-G stuff deployed before 2010, and I’m being optimistic there. There are a huge number of physics problems to be overcome before that can get out of the laboratory.”

But as for 10GbE, it’s only real problem, according to our experts is price. Crehan expects 10GbE pricing to drop to affordable levels even for a tight economy. If it doesn’t, he foresees a far less rosy future for 10GbE.

Oliva though is sure that 10GbE will prosper. As she says, “Ethernet is IP’s best friend, and in the end, IP wants Ethernet.”

SIDEBAR: Gigabit to the Desktop?

While there may be few deployments of 10Gbe in the next few months, where it is deployed, you might be able to turn this into additional work by suggesting the deployment of gigabit Ethernet to the desktop. With sufficient bandwidth now available over campus WAN networks, gigabit to the desk is much more attractive since a few desktops can’t potentially eat an entire network bandwidth with one gigantic, ill-timed file download gulp.

But, for that to happen, you’ll need to check your gigabit network cards and drivers very carefully. Many network integrators have complained to me that gigabit cards have an abnormally high failure rate and that the drivers, especially on Windows, aren’t all they’re cracked up to be.

All that said, with proper testing, you may be able to persuade customers that so long as they’re ramping up their WAN backbone that they might want to consider giving their most highly used LANs a Gigabit steroid injection.

June 10, 2002
by sjvn01
0 comments

Can’t give up your Windows applications? Win4Lin 4.0 is for you

You say you love Linux, but you absolutely must have your Microsoft Office and Quicken, too? Well, you’re in luck, NetTraverse’s latest Win4Lin 4.0 Workstation lets you run Office XP, Quicken, Lotus Notes, PhotoShop and a host of other common-and not so common-office programs.
Of course, there are other ways to bring Microsoft Windows to Linux, and recently Codeweavers, with Crossover Office, is providing a way for Microsoft Office lovers to use Office, and a few other programs including the Lotus Notes 5.0x client, on their Linux machines. That said, for stability, speed, and sheer range of Windows applications supported, it’s hard to beat Win4Lin 4.0.

Win4Lin enables you to run Windows 95, 98, 98 Second Edition (SE) or Windows ME on any of its supported Linux distributions. To do so, of course, you actually need to have an installable copy of Windows in hand. An update Windows disc won’t do the job any more than it would on a PC without an operating system. You can also forget about installing NT, 2000 or XP.

For my money, your best choice is Windows 98SE. ME will run just as well as ME ever does, which is just another way of saying you’re better off with 98SE.

On the Linux side, you will need to use one of NeTraverse’s modified kernels or modify the kernel yourself. Some people have asked that NeTraverse just issue a modified kernel for every Linux implementation that comes down the pike. Because that’s expensive and NeTraverse just announced its support for UnitedLinux, that’s not going to happen. In any case, with support for most popular desktop Linuxes, the vast majority of Linux users will never even notice.

If you already have Win4Lin 3, it’s an easy upgrade path to version 4. You will, however, need to purchase a new installation license. This costs $49.99. If you’re new to Win4Lin, you can download and run it for $89.99. A boxed version is available for $99.99.

Whichever way you get a copy, installation is a breeze. I installed Win4Lin on both a HP Pavilion running Red Hat 7.1 with a 1.4 GHz Athlon XP and an HP Pavilion with SuSE 8.0 and a 1GHz Pentium III. With the Red Hat machine, I set up fist Windows ME and then 98SE. On the SuSE system, I stuck with 98SE.

Once Windows was on these machines though, I did run into some customization problems. For the most part, these were commonplace Windows ME/98SE problems that I’ve seen before in ordinary Windows installations.

The one exception was in setting the machine to use a Virtual Network (VNET) so that I could more easily use the Windows Network Neighborhood to hook up to my network drives and printers. My problem was that I couldn’t connect with my network Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) IP address server. A quick look through the release notes quickly set me right. In any case, had I chosen to give the VNET adapter a static IP, I wouldn’t have run into any trouble at all.

To see what Win4Lin could really do, I decided to take the logical step of installing my full application workload on the SuSE system and work on it for a week.

So I installed all of Office 2000, except Outlook; FrontPage 2002 from Office XP; Pegasus Mail 4.01; Adobe Acrobat 5; RealPlayer 6; Adobe PhotoShop 5.5; Lotus Organizer 6.0; Internet Explorer 5.5 SP2; Macromedia DreamWeaver 4.0 and that blast from word processing’s past, WordStar 7.0.

But, especially with the Microsoft products, that was only the start. I also had to update and patch many of these programs to block security holes. This can often go wrong when you’re running one operating system on top of another, but Win4Lin delivered and installed the updates like a champ.

In fact, this is when I noticed one of the advantages of running Win4Lin with 98SE over running 98SE directly on the hardware. Shutting down and booting the Windows operating system went much faster on Linux than Win98SE did on the same system running by its self.

The real proof of any system though is how well it does when handling your day-to-day work, not just looking good in a benchmark suite. Once more, Win4Lin proved itself a winner. Over a week, the system never froze — although Windows had locked up on that very same hardware running the same workload. I can’t claim that everyone will find Win98SE more stable on Linux, but that was my experience.

I also found the system to be very fast. The total system RAM was 256MBs, and with this edition of Win4Lin, I can access up to 128MBs of RAM. This made a real difference when running such memory hungry applications as PhotoShop and DreamWeaver at the same time, which is something I do often. While not as fast as they would have been running natively on the hardware, they were perfectly usable.

And, for my day-to-day work combination of Word, Excel, Lotus Organizer, Pegasus Mail, and Internet Explorer, I didn’t really notice that Linux was also running … if it wasn’t for the fact that I also had my typical Linux application package of KDE 3.0, Netscape 6.2, Konqueror, elm, and vi running.

Now to make Win4Lin perform like this, you do need to pay attention to the release notes. In particular, you must enable backing store in XFree86-4.0.x. In most distributions the default is to turn this off, but turning it on gives Win4Lin a real graphics kick in the pants.

You may also want to give Windows access to more memory using the winsetup configuration set up utility located in /usr/bin. By default, for example, Win98SE only has access to 24MBs of RAM. Simply adding more RAM to your Window session may not actually help you, though. As is always the case with system performance tuning, you should read all the instructions and not simply assume that the maximum values are the best values.

For my purposes, daily office work, Win4Lin is a keeper.

It may not, however, be for you. While it now has support for wheeled mice, it still lacks support for USB, FireWire, DirectX, CD-writing and many other useful, but not necessarily essential, hardware and software additions.

But, if what you want is a solid way to bring most Windows office and home applications to either your desk or to your workplace, Win4Lin is for you.

A version of this story first appeared in NewsForge.

May 30, 2002
by sjvn01
0 comments

United Linux: One for all, and all for one

Today, a major Linux revolution started. Caldera, Conectiva, SuSE, and Turbolinux announced that they would work together in a new initiative, UnitedLinux that will create a single global, uniform business distribution of Linux. UnitedLinux is creating a standard, business-focused Linux distribution that is certified to work across the both AMD and Intel’s 32-bit x86 lines, the 64-bit x86 Athlon, Opteron, and Itantium families; and the complete IBM eServer series.

Some Linux fans are poo-pooing this annoucement as not being that big a deal. They’re dead wrong. While it won’t make much difference to consumer Linux—United Linux (UL), a pure business operating system play, completely changes the Linux business landscape.

Why? Because at long last OEMs, like IBM and HP, and more importantly independent software vendors (ISV)s will need to work with, at most, two Linux versions—the other being Red Hat— instead of the five major versions they must deal with today. That will save these companies a bundle of application porting money.

Indeed, as Ransom Love, Caldera’s CEO, say, the OEMs and ISVs have been pushing for it. AMD, Borland, Computer Associates, Fujitsu, HP, IBM, Intel, Siemens, and SAP, , not to mention resellers and integrators, have all wanted fewer Linux distributions. And that’s exactly what they got.
Some observors see UL as a pure anti-Red Hat move. The UL distributors insist that is not the case. Lee Pham, CEO of Turbolinux, and Love both made this point. Instead, they see the main driver as all the partners’ wanting to meet the needs, almost demands, of OEMs, ISVs and customers for fewer and better Linux choices.

Scott Handy, IBM’s director of Worldwide Linux Solutions agrees. While he says that IBM didn’t push the UL initative per se, “It was a community effort. But, we did like, all other ISVs and OEMs, make it clear that unification would make it much easier to sell Linux in the enterprise space.” Every other UL ISV and OEM partner echoed these comments.

Stacey Quandt, Giga’s Open Source analyst, however, thinks that IBM played a bigger role than Handy claims. “If you look at the companies that partnered with UL, you’ll see that most of them are IBM allies.” She thinks that IBM helped drive the creation of UL because Big Blue needed a unified Linux to support their DB2 database and WebSphere middleware across their platform line.

Additionally, she observes that Red Hat and Oracle have become quite chummy and that next week the two will be announcing Unbreakable Linux. She thinks that what we may be seeing is Linux polarizing around three vendors: IBM and United Linux, Oracle and Red Hat, and Sun with its own inhouse Linux.

Another problem that this addresses for the UL distributors is brand recognition. In the United States, when you say Linux to a customer today, they almost always think of Red Hat. With all of the major other Linux vendors advertising UL, this may change.

The UL companies also needed to reduce reduce costs. As it was, each of the Linux companies essentially had to reinvent the wheel of file systems, installation software and so on with each of their own releases. By consolidating their efforts behind one kernel, one installation routine and so on, they could avoid wasting their engineers’ time.

This is a move, Love explains, that’s been coming ever since Bruce Perens, one of open source’s fathers and now HP’s senior straegits for Linux and Open Source, first said almost five ago that there needed to be a unified code base.

In practice, things finally moved beyond the “wouldn’t this be a good idea” stage about eight months ago. Three weeks ago, Caldera, which lead the UnitedLinux initative in many ways, announced that they were closing their Erlangen, Germany offices.

What they didn’t say at the time was that these employees were going straight to SuSE. There, lead by Ralf Flaxa, a former Caldera senior engineer and Linux Standard Base designer, the combined SuSE and Caldera team are already making SuSE’s Enterprise Linux server into the core UL operating system.
The project, with SuSE as lead integrator, already has alpha product. Beta will follow in the 3rd quarter, and the shipping code will be available in the 4th quarter. More specifically, according to Love, November, probably Comdex, will see the release of the final product.

Who’s on Board and Who’s Not

Of course, not everyone is in on the deal. Red Hat, the most important North American business Linux, isn’t in on it, and neither is Mandrake, the popular consumer Linux vendor or Sun. Love explained that the “pulling together the four companies was more than difficult enough.” It may also had something to do with the fact that each company already had its own stronghold. SuSE’s the most popular Linux distribution; Conectiva’s is South America’s; Turbolinux is strong in Asia and the Pacific rim, and Caldera, while not as big as Red Hat, is a North American power.

In any case, UL membership is open to any Linux distributiors. There is no membership fees, but companies will need to contribute their fair share of the development costs. In specific, the door has already been opened to Mandrake, Red Flag (China), Red Hat, and Sun. The UL big four are certain that other companies will join them.

But, it may be a while. Mark de Visser, Vice President of Marketing for Red Hat wrote that while “Too many distributions hamper the migration of applications to Linux, so if this effort by Caldera and others consolidates distributions it is a good development. But in Linux, application support is everything. Red Hat Linux Advanced Server has it today. Time will tell if the Caldera group’s distribution will achieve the same level of support.”

Despite Red Hat’s charization of this as a Caldera group, all four companies are equal partners with SuSE and Caldera, it appears, spearheading the effort. It’s also worth noting that while they’re united behind UL, they’re not united as a business entities. This is no merger. Each company will keep their own identity, set their own prices, and do their own marketing.

UL Specifics

What UL will bring to the table is a common kernel, APIs, file systems installation routines and so on for business Linux. In short, no matter the vendor name on the box, users, OEMs and developers will get UL. This will come in the familiar form of a single installation CD. Each company will also bundle along with it, on separate CDs, their own software packages. You can expect to see, for example, Volution products on Caldera’s CD and PowerCockpit in Turbolinux’s package.

Contrary to some rumours, the UL will be a completely GPL and associated licenses protected Linux. The source code will be freely availble, but the binaries will not. Of course, some take the UL source code and create their own binaries, but these won’t be allowed to use UL branding or get UL support.
In addition, UnitedLinux will also support the Linux Standards Base (LSB)—in some ways it can be seen as an implementation of the LSB–, and the Li18nux and GB18030 standards. UL will also have vast international support for English, German, French, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Portuguese, Spanish, Simplified Chinese and Traditional Chinese languages.

The target audience for UL will be the middle and high end Unix and Windows 2000 installations. While UL will show up in basic file/print servers, it’s aim is much higher.

Besides simply bringing together the best Linux practices of the four companies, the product, according to Love, will also include functionality taken from Caldera’s OpenUnix and OpenServer lines.
On the flip side, OpenUnix 8 will include a UL Linux Kernel Personality (LKP), and, if there’s customer demand for it, a UL LKP for OpenServer. In any case, Caldera plans to continue supporting both its Unix platforms. If anything, with less time spent on Linux internally, they may actually get more attention.

What it All Means

For the UL members, and the companies that join them, this should be good news. They can cut costs while actually delivering a better business Linux. It also gives each of them a global reach and makes their partnerships with OEMs and ISVs much stronger.

The OEMs and ISVs, of course, have suddenly seen their Linux strategies become much easier to manage and cheaper. In turn, you can expect to see many more business applcations arriving for Linux.

All of which, will make it much easier for CTOs, resellers and integrators. You’ll be much less likely to face obscure Linux application implementation problems because of subtle differences between Linux distributions. And, you’ll have a much wider array of Linux business applications to tempt customers with.

Of course, if Red Hat does join UnitedLinux—after all it would save them development costs and improve their ISV relationships too—Linux could make its biggest jump yet in business deployments.

The dark cloud on the horizon is whether UL might lead to a three-way battle between the forces of Red Hat and Oracle and UnitedLinux and IBM and Sun resulting in a mild version of the kind of Unix operating system wars that damaged so many Unix resellers and customers.

While unlikely to go that far, a wise practical technologist will keep his or her eyes on the business relationship dances between IBM, Oracle and Sun. That, more than anything else, will determine.

May 20, 2002
by sjvn01
0 comments

IBM and Linux: The Early Years

In February 1999, IBM announced it would support Linux and a partnership with Red Hat. By July of that year, Advanced Communication Design, a developer and OEM of in-store interactive digital audio and video merchandising systems, made history by being one of the first companies to deploy a major, mission critical IBM/Red Hat Linux system. Why? Marco Scibora, ACD’s president explained then it was because “Linux is very reliable, and its help resources are extremely fast,” and also, “now that Linux has major corporate help support from IBM and other companies, it makes a great environment for customized programs.”

Fast-forward to October 2000: IBM announced it had a grand operating system unification plan for its servers. Its name was Linux, and with the partnership of the four major business Linux distributors, Caldera, Red Hat, SuSE and Turbolinux, IBM made it happen. Today, there’s no modern IBM hardware from laptop to mainframe that you can’t run Linux on.

Now it all seems inevitable. IBM and Linux, Linux and IBM. Today, the two go together as closely as Microsoft and Windows. But what is IBM really getting from Linux? How well is the partnership between what was once seen as the stodgiest of all computer companies and the most rebellious of all operating systems actually going beyond the ad campaigns and the constant announcements of new deals?

Those famous billion dollars

The example people usually cite to such a question is IBM’s famous $1 billion spent in 2001 on Linux. The figure is certainly an impressive one and even more striking, is that Bill Zeitler, IBM’s senior vice president and group executive for eServer, claims: “We’ve recouped most of it in the first year in sales of software and systems.”

What Zeitler didn’t say, though, was the billion-dollar figure isn’t just Linux, as both Stacy Quandt, Giga Information Group’s Open Source analyst, and Dan Kusnetzky, IDC’s vice president of system software research, point out. It’s for the division that also works on AIX and Caldera’s OpenUnix. While the OpenUnix segment is tiny, AIX, the operating system of choice for the pSeries (aka, RS/6000, POWER systems) is a very popular mid-range and clustering Unix choice and competes head to head with Sun’s Solaris and HP’s HP/UX.

So what is the actual breakdown? IBM’s not telling. According to an IBM senior PR representative, “The $1 billion investment IBM made in Linux in 2001 was across hardware, software and services. The investment spanned a number of areas, including development, marketing, sales, ISV support and advertising worldwide. As for a breakdown of the investment between AIX and Linux, we don’t break the percentages down to that level.”

You’d think IBM must know the numbers, but one is led to think that while Linux doubtlessly gets hundreds of millions in support, perhaps even the majority of that billion, that impressive figure doesn’t tell the whole story.

No one doubts Linux’s importance to IBM. Even Simon Phipps, Sun’s chief technology evangelist, says, “IBM is selling a lot of Linux.” He also says, “They also have things going on out there that aren’t entirely kosher.”

For a specific example, Shahin Khan, Sun’s chief competitive officer writes: “The economics just don’t work. IBM claims it is financially justifiable to consolidate as few as 20 Linux servers on a z800 (a new zSeries mainframe). With an estimated starting price of $400,000 for a z800 with a single CPU engine enabled, that claim seems exaggerated compared to Linux servers that hover in the $1,000 to $2,000 range … When customers realize Linux on mainframe utilization will be low, and administration costs have still not been factored in, you can begin to see how the costs will add up. And let’s not forget the support costs that will need to be purchased, either from the distributor or IBM Global Services.”

Of course, Sun has its own ax to grind here. Still, Quandt observes that IBM hasn’t been forthcoming with where its almost billion dollar return from Linux has been coming in, either. She speculates, “Even a few mainframe sales could go a long way towards explaining that number.”

Has IBM been good for Linux development?

Here there can be little doubt. It has supported porting Linux to its own platforms and development of device drivers; has made its journaled file system technology available under GPL; and has supported Linux developers. It’s easy to see why many analysts and developers think that IBM is the best friend a Linux programmer can have. And, that’s before the money and resources IBM provides to its Linux distribution partners.

But, as Bruce Perens, HP’s senior strategist for Linux and Open Source, points out, it’s not all sweetness and light for IBM, Open Source, and Linux. He thinks that, “IBM has one huge skeleton in its closet. Its strategic intellectual property policy is anti-Open Source. IBM’s IP license structure is a fiefdom not responsible to another and the licensing department has a lot to say. Where does IBM Open Source and Linux communities and IBM’s IP policy groups meet? To me, they seem to only meet at IBM’s CEO.”

What Perens fears is that IBM may veer away from Open Source orthodoxy. While he works for an IBM competitor, he does have a point. In areas other than Linux, IBM has recently had a checkered history with Open Source and open standards. For example, IBM and Sun have recently been fighting over Sun not being allowed to join as a senior member of the open Web Standards ubergroup, the Web Services Interoperability Organization and over their now slowly settling fight over open source Java tool development kits. On one side, Sun was promoting NetBeans, while on the other, IBM was aggressively moving forward with its new Eclipse platform. They had the same goal, both Open Source, but there was a short, nasty political fight, which didn’t bring anyone closer to usable code.

Will IBM back off from its currently Open Source supportive Linux stance? So far, it doesn’t look that way. Its fights with Sun probably, many observers think, have more to do with its long running competition with Sun than being able to promote a closed source, closed standard policy.

Even Perens is quick to point out that IBM and HP’s adoption of the GPL has lead to the two becoming “good collaborators.” He adds: “The GPL is the only thing that ensures that partners can work together. Traditionally, HP and IBM haven’t worked well together, but in Open Source, we manage to do it.” Between Open Source making it possible for IBM to work with other industry powers and empowering its Linux operation, it’s hard to see IBM going back to its old proprietary ways.

Business wise, the case is open and shut. IBM has proven to be a winner for Linux. As Eric Raymond, co-founder of the Open Source Initiative, says, “Having the biggest technology company in the world back Linux sent a clear signal to a lot of conservative types at large corporations who would otherwise have taken longer to pay serious attention.”

Perens agrees, “I like IBM’s advertising because it gets me in to see senators and congress people. Before, they had no idea what Linux was or that it was important. Now, they do.”

Kusnetzky explains the power of IBM in detail. “When most enterprises look for a new system, the first thing they do is to decide on databases and tools. The next decision point is what applications will work with your DBMS and tools for those things we don’t want to build for ourselves. The hardware and operating system are in their third round. So, for example if Oracle is the database, then products that don’t work well with Oracle don’t even show up. Others start with packaged applications to minimize expenses, and then go to the database, and only then get vendors in the room, and decide on an operating system and architecture.”

He goes on, “That’s why Linux has had trouble entering into enterprise space. Quite often the Linux suppliers don’t have the relationship with independent software vendors. So when the party is thrown they don’t always get an invitation. Sometimes, Linux may be better choice, but it may never get a chance. Linux people often don’t have marketing folks, if the decision maker is an engineer or tech type, then Linux’s technology will win out for them. However, talking technology to the CIO isn’t going to work. You have to talk to Dilbert’s boss, not Dilbert. What IBM has done is do a better job of convincing both Dilbert and Dilbert’s boss that Linux is something they should consider.”

And, with IBM, Dilbert, and Dilbert’s boss, all interested in Linux, Linux finally is showing up in places beyond Web servers and departmental file/print servers. But where exactly are IBM, Linux and partners going?

A version of this story first appeared on NewsForge.