[NTLUG:Discuss] Speculations about fallout for Linux with the IBM sale?

[Bryan J. Smith]

On Thu, 2004-12-09 at 16:35, Peter A. Koren wrote:
> Look at:
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/12/07/ibm_pc_sell_off_power/

The Register tends to get its "analysis messed up" on regular basis.
They are good for _quotes_ of facts, but don't read their analysis.
They just get it dead wrong regularly.

IBM's sell-off has nothing to do with IA-32/IA-32e v. Power/PowerPC.  It
has to do with getting out of the retail PC business.  IBM is going to
stick with OEM microelectronics, big iron, high-end client/server and,
most of all, services.

> Intel's trip-up on 64 bits -- Itanium = Itanic = Titanic

Intel should have _never_ left Digital on Alpha.  Their EPIC/Predication
approach just _flopped_ -- a CS ideal that didn't engineer into silicon
too well.  Now they are just using Alpha technologies, both in IC and in
software.

> -- leaves IBM in a position to make their Power architecture and chips
> competitors in the  wider semiconductor market as the marketplace
> transitions to 64 bits.

So far IBM hasn't shown they can neither meet the demand nor the
economies of scale pricing of AMD/Intel.  Now IBM _did_ say they would
not before 2005, so if IBM is going to "make good," it will be in 2005+.

The IBM Power/PowerPC ISAs are clearly far more efficient.  While both
AMD and Intel processors have to slow down to sub-1GHz speeds to reach
sub-20W on battery, a PowerPC 970 can typically reach 1.4-1.5GHz at
19W.  And the PowerPC 970 is about par with the Athlon core, MHz for
MHz, which is 50% faster (100% faster at some ops) than the P4.

But, again, IBM hasn't delivered on the quantity or cost yet.  We'll
have to see.

> Linux, which already is 64 bit ready and runs on all popular
> architectures, is a big plus for IBM if IBM goes after that market.

Any GNU platform is.  Win32 is rather x86-specific, not even very x86-64
compatible other than the NT kernel.  The Win32-on-Win64 (WoW) hack is a
major performance issue for Windows on 64-bit right now until Microsoft
can re-create Win64.

> So IBM may be making war on Intel with Microsoft being collateral damage
> if IBM can execute.

What about AMD?  IBM is their primary foundary now (with UMC handling
most of the trailing edge, along with AMD's few fabs).  At what point
does IBM take away Athlon64/Opteron production?

IBM has hinted that Power/PowerPC will offer this in 2005.  Again, I'm
waiting to see.  So far, they've met little demand outside of the G5
desktops from Apple.

> That is a big if. Linux can benefit to the degree that Microsoft is
> hurt.

I don't see Power/PowerPC huring Intel without also hurting AMD.  But
both would hurt Microsoft.

But in reality, it's really hard to overturn x86, period.  And I think
IBM's been honest on that.  They have stated that their ultimate goal is
only to reach 30% adoption by 2010 (I'll try to find that article).

So I still see AMD-Intel-Microsoft as viable by 2010.

> Can the IBM elephant tap dance?

IBM is smart.  They are only entering markets that net them money.  If
an endeavor will not net them money, they won't enter into it.

And so far with Linux, outside of services and big iron, IBM has
actually only cut Linux support as of late.  So they have to see the
sales first.

Almost a catch-22 -- economies of scale requires adoption -- so which
comes first?  Luckily for IBM, the PowerPC 970 is also used in the G5,
so they already have at least Apple in the mix.  If they could just get
"more friendly" with the OEM microelectronics -- until recently, they
were not very at all.

-- 
Bryan J. Smith                                 b.j.smith at ieee.org 
------------------------------------------------------------------ 
Beware of advocates who justify their preference not in terms of
what they like about their "choice," but what they did not like
about another option.  Such advocacy is more hurtful than helpful.