Thinkpads Forum

If not then oh well but i can wish.

There is, it's called Linux.

There is also a project called K42.
http://domino.research.ibm.com/comm/res ... index.html
"The K42 group is developing a new high performance, open source, general-purpose research operating system kernel for cache-coherent multiprocessors. We are targeting next generation servers ranging from small-scale multiprocessors that we expect will become ubiquitous, to very large-scale non-symmetric multiprocessors that are becoming increasingly important in both commercial and technical environments. By designing the system from the start for multiprocessors, we achieve a high degree of spatial and temporal locality in code and data. This locality results in substantial performance advantages, even on small-scale servers. To support large servers, K42 is designed to scale to hundreds of processors and to address the reliability, fault-containment, and fault-tolerance requirements of large commercial applications. K42 employs building-block technology to allow applications to customize and thus optimize the OS services they require. This is particularly important for applications, such as databases and web servers, where given the ability to control physical resources, they can improve performance. K42 is portable; it currently runs on PowerPC systems (both native and using Mambo). K42's design allows implementors on a particular architecture to choose what objects of the system should be customized for that architecture, and as a result allows the implementors to exploit any architecture specific features to improve performance. K42 supports the Linux API and ABI. The K42 group has been actively involved with the Research Hypervisor"

Indirectly, there is. It is called eComStation. It is an updated version of IBM"s OS/2 Warp. http://www.ecomstation.com They are working on a version 2.0. I look forward to using it.

i-SnipeZ wrote:If not then oh well but i can wish.

look at this http://tracker.os4.su

i-SnipeZ wrote:If not then oh well but i can wish.

As you can see the answer is yes, but none of them are going to be mainstream like Windows or even Mac OS.

There is OSFree. http://www.osfree.org There is also Voyager. http://voyager.netlabs.org They are both being developed but progress is slow.

> but none of them are going to be mainstream

That's good.

> like Windows

This program has performed an illegal operation and the <censored> <blankety blank> <nasty, aren't I?> programmer should be arrested.

> or even Mac OS

Discontinued along with the Power PC. Now all Apple sells are Macintosh brand PC's.
What is the world coming to?

Discontinued along with the Power PC. Now all Apple sells are Macintosh brand PC's.

Eh?

Mac OS X is still alive and well. I take it you were referring to the 'classic' Mac OS? Well... yeah, that's gone... but it's not exactly a great loss...

I was referring to Macintosh computers, which are based on the 68000/PPC processors, not intel. Macs were discontinued a few years ago. Now all Apple sells are PCs running an alternative OS named after Mac OS but obviously not compatible with it. I've heard that it is actually a unix with a Mac style GUI.

IBM did OS/2 back when they had a huge PC manufacturing business, they sold that off so I don't see the point of wasting time and money doing an OS. eComstation is OS/2 that was sold off.

Does IBM have their own UNIX anymore (AIX) or are they just using Linux?

Bookworm,

Before maligning a multi-billion dollar corporation I would do some research into what they actually sell and what direction they are actually headed in. PowerPC may have reached the end of the line, Apple has not.

I never said anything negative about Apple's PCs. I heard they're pretty good. My point is that they are PCs, not Macs, running a unix that looks like Mac OS. If you still insist that Apple's Macintosh brand PC are Macs, please explain why it's so easy to put Windows on them (horrifying true Mac users) and Mac OS X on a ThinkPad.

How do the latest Powerbooks compare to the latest ThinkPads?

Bookworm wrote:I never said anything negative about Apple's PCs. I heard they're pretty good. My point is that they are PCs, not Macs, running a unix that looks like Mac OS. If you still insist that Apple's Macintosh brand PC are Macs, please explain why it's so easy to put Windows on them (horrifying true Mac users) and Mac OS X on a ThinkPad.

Yes, Mac OS core is based on BSD, a unix-like OS, but that is just one part of the whole OS and a lot of the code in the core was actually written by Apple. The fact that it has a POSIX interface does not make it a Linux. And as for the hardware, would you put Windows and Linux guys in the same bag just because they run their OS on the same hardware? Using custom chips doesn't make much sense economically so Apple uses what's available. And they are still putting it all together so tying the OS to the hardware is their right. What matters for most customers is the final product. They don't care if there is Intel or PowerPC in it as long as it works like they want.

yak wrote: Yes, Mac OS core is based on BSD, a unix-like OS, but that is just one part of the whole OS and a lot of the code in the core was actually written by Apple. The fact that it has a POSIX interface does not make it a Linux. And as for the hardware, would you put Windows and Linux guys in the same bag just because they run their OS on the same hardware?

Well, to be fair, a good chunk of Darwin is taken directly from FreeBSD (most of the userland tools), and a good chunk of xnu was written by what was (at the time) NeXT. That said, most of the mid-level stuff -- the APIs such as Core(Data|Image|Audio|Video|Animation), a good chunk of Cocoa, etc. -- was indeed written by Apple.

Still, it's not as though Apple wrote the entire OS. There *is* a very large amount of open source code that they didn't write. (Examples: CUPS, Apache, the BSD userland, SQLite, OpenSSH, X11, gcc, PHP, and many more.)

And they are still putting it all together so tying the OS to the hardware is their right. What matters for most customers is the final product. They don't care if there is Intel or PowerPC in it as long as it works like they want.

Well... it's their "right" to introduce that sort of artificial restriction, sure... but I'm not so sure it's their "right" to try to punish people who wish to circumvent said restriction. That's a debate for another time though...

In a way, yes. It is 2.0 of eComStation that was just released to GA just recently.
http://www.ecomstation.com

Sorry for necromancy:

Unknown_K wrote: Does IBM have their own UNIX anymore (AIX) or are they just using Linux?

AIX 7 was released Sept 2010. (Part of my job is admin for a bunch of old AIX systems.)

IBM's also got i as well, and they're definitely still maintaining that.

.

granular wrote:How many OS does this world need?

A lot.

There are very, very few "one size fits all" solutions in computing.

The more the better, variety is the spice of life.

Arca Noae is developing for OS/2 - eCS.
https://www.arcanoae.com/