AIX ne deja vu pas

11 replies [Last post]
catmistake's picture
Offline
Joined: Dec 20 2003
Posts: 1098

This is not test, its just an ask...

On the previous version of this site, I expressed an interest in the possibility of running AIX on Macs other than the ANS. I thought maybe since an ANS was so similar to a 9500, or so I've read, maybe I could put it on a PowerPC... the idea was very gently shot down by those more experienced and knowledgeable than I.

I am a complete novice at operating systems, but I thought I would throw this out there (again).

If it were possible to get that special Mac AIX running stable on other Macs, I think that would just about be the coolest thing. I have found a copy of it, but other projects have prevented me from moving anywhere with it.

But since I found this:

http://www.applefritter.com/node/view/538
"At the time (1993?) I first saw the early pre-Shiner (ANS) demos by Apple of Netware and AIX running on a weird PPC 601 in a Quadra 950 case prototype,"...

and

http://wombat.doc.ic.ac.uk/foldoc/foldoc.cgi?CHRP
PReP-compliant systems will be able to run the Macintosh OS, OS/2, WorkplaceOS, AIX, Solaris, Taligent and Windows NT. IBM systems will (of course) be PReP-compliant. Apple's first PowerPC Macintoshes will not be compliant, but future ones may be.

I am interested again and even more so...
I have been looking at something to revive the PowerPC 601 Macs into usefulness. They seem to be this interim platform that served its purpose and was discarded. I never liked any of those machines, especially, but I do like how much they sell for, and the idea of a PowerPC upgrade in an earlier legacy box. Low End Macs has a vague reference to a vague reference of a PowerPC 601 in a Mac SE/30... I think that would be neat, but if it could run AIX, that would be awesome*.

Also, and I have nothing to support this... what about the G3? Aren't there IBM G3 systems out there that can run AIX? I think a stack of G3 desktops running AIX would also be worth more than the sum of its parts.

I guess I am asking again for the good reasons why I am completely misguided in my high-level, haven't-even-tried-it-yet, logic.

Be gentle.
Thanks.

*post edited for content by Dr. Webster

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
rael9's picture
Offline
Joined: Dec 26 2003
Posts: 215
erm...

Honestly, I'm not sure why you'd want to bother. If you really want to shoehorn a *NIX variant onto one of those machines, use some sort of Linux on it. It's at least somewhat supported. And it's free, as opposed to AIX which is neither free as in speech OR free as in beer.

James M. Baker
----------
Computer Nerd
----------
[url=http://rael.webhop.org"]My site[/url]

__________________

James M. Baker
----------
Computer Nerd
----------
[url=http://rael.webhop.org"]My site[/url]

catmistake's picture
Offline
Joined: Dec 20 2003
Posts: 1098
Linux doesn't compare

Linux is certainly mature, but I'm learning to hate it because you have to keep fixing it. I know it is fine for the single user desktop... I think that's what it is for, even though IBM is now supporting it on all their boxes, somebody knows something, because they still develope and support AIX. I realize if they stopped supporting AIX that, what, banks would stop working and whatnot, but I think the really shrewd administrators are insisting on a better OS than linux, and THATs why they continue with it.

I realize AIX is a pain in the you know what, but once the system is up, it will stay up YEARS longer than a linux box without any rebooting.

What I've been told is that linux is great if you reboot once a day or once a week, or if you have lots of extra-hardware that needs supported (like joysticks and super hot gaming graphics cards). But if you want a multi-user server to stay up for months without breaking, linux is not the choice of giants.

Sorry, I guess I'm in the other camp (though Linus is a hero, no doubt).

btw nice clean site!

Offline
Joined: Dec 20 2003
Posts: 130
AIX is hardware dependant. Yo

AIX is hardware dependant. You would have to hack it and dissasemble it to even have a remote chance of it working. So best let it slide, because it's not worth it and it's never going to happen.

Don't mean to be rudeor abrupt but AIX just is not ready for the world of regular Macs and never will be. If you really want AIX on a PowerMac 9500 or like Mac, you will need to strike a license deal with Apple and other UNIX IP Holders so you can get your hands on the source code. It won't be cheap.

rael9's picture
Offline
Joined: Dec 26 2003
Posts: 215
Linuxy Goodness

Quote:

btw nice clean site!

Thanks!

At work I have a server running Libranet Linux (a Debian derivative) that hasn't had to be restarted since I set it up. We also have a new firewall running Smoothwall Linux on a P200 with 64 MB of RAM. It seems to be working quite well so far. A lot of it has to do with the distro you use and how adept you are at using it. Debian takes some getting used to, and apt is less than perfect, but once you get to know it, you probably aren't going to find much that is as powerful when it comes to binary package handling. In my experience, Debian Just Works (TM). It takes a lot to really kill a Debian system, especially off of the Stable branch.

The BSDs' ports system is pretty good, too, but it takes longer to install everything since it compiles everything instead of installing binaries. For that matter, BSD might be up your alley if you want some UNIXy Goodness (TM). It's a bit more like traditional UNIX in a lot of ways. And some people say it is even more stable than Linux. That's more of a matter of opinion than fact, but such are the OS wars.

Quote:

What I’ve been told is that linux is great if you reboot once a day or once a week...

I'm not sure who told you that, but they are wrong. Linux can stay up for years (barring power outages and such) with nary a hiccup in site. You don't even need to restart when you upgrade software on it. You can simply do the upgrade and then restart the services you've upgraded. In some cases it's easier to restart, but you don't have to if it's a server you don't want downtime on.

James M. Baker
----------
Computer Nerd
----------
[url=http://rael.webhop.org"]My site[/url]

__________________

James M. Baker
----------
Computer Nerd
----------
[url=http://rael.webhop.org"]My site[/url]

Eudimorphodon's picture
Offline
Joined: Dec 21 2003
Posts: 1203
Re: ... I really hate the lack of quoting...

(quote)I realize AIX is a pain in the you know what, but once the system is up, it will stay up YEARS longer than a linux box without any rebooting.(/quote)

AIX is reliable because the hardware it runs on is reliable. Every RS/6000 box (and the Apple ANS) includes such nicities as ECC RAM, redundant and overbuilt power supplies, nice quiet bus designs, etc. Put an RS/6000 motherboard, which alone costs several thousand dollars, next to a $70 consumer-quality board and you'll see what I mean. Even given that difference, I've had cheap@55 rotgut Linux servers running for months on end. (The limiting factor honestly in most cases seems to be the reliability of the electrical grid.)

I don't know who's been telling you things about Linux, but they're obviously ignorant or incompetent. With rare exceptions the only time you ever *have* to reboot a Linux server is for a kernel upgrade. Admittedly, if you do something drastic like upgrade the glibc libraries it's probably not a bad idea to restart the computer since you'll want to restart every running process anyway, but in theory you don't *have* to. Solaris, AIX, and every other commercial have the same limitations. (Patch the kernel, reboot.)

Anyway, to get back to the original subject, well... the prototype of the ANS may of indeed had a 601 in it (probably sitting in an IBM designed motherboard), but that doesn't mean you'd have any chance of running AIX on *any* 601 equipped Macintosh, other then possibly the 7200 (or 7500). The PowerPC Reference Platform, or "PReP", as referred to by that article you mentioned, describes a fairly rigid set of hardware requirements that includes a PowerPC CPU, PCI bus, Open Firmware, optional VGA and IDE chipsets, etc. The only 601 machines released by Apple which even vaguely resemble the specs are the 7200 and 7500 with the original 601 CPU card, and even those differ in certain key respects. (Apple frankly had no desire to make their hardware PReP or CHRP compliant, as doing so would of risked breaking their proprietary hardware/software monopoly. The ANS is the closest thing to a PReP machine Apple ever released... and note that it specifically *doesn't* run MacOS.)

Making AIX run on any NuBus based Mac, well... if you had a few man-years to waste and the full sources of AIX maybe you could make it go. (It might be helpful to have the full source of A/UX to fill in some of the blanks, as it was the only SysV-based UNIX to ever run on Nubus. Of course, it's based on a much older revision of the core code, but it'd be a start. It'd also be a licensing nightmare to figure out who owned what by the time you were finished.) Of course, to get the sources you're going to have to strike a deal with IBM for all their AIX enhancements, *and* probably negotiate a SysV source license with the SCO group, who in case you haven't heard think that anything with a trace of SysV code in it should cost at least $699 per CPU in binary form.

If you're dying to run AIX, PReP PowerPC boxes from IBM and Motorola are pretty cheap, but, really, there isn't that much special about it. It's a nice, solid, expensive commercial UNIX. In terms of sex appeal it beats Solaris but loses out bigtime to IRIX. And for all practical purposes there's nothing you can do with it that you can't do with Net/Free/OpenBSD or Linux.

--Peace

catmistake's picture
Offline
Joined: Dec 20 2003
Posts: 1098
ok, got it again, thankyou all

I will be content, then, to get it up on an ANS, once I get rid of some of these SE/30s.

And sorry for the misconceptions about linux... my brother is a big fan, too.

And sorry for the slang, my fingers sometimes move faster than my brain (But I thought everybody loved 'awesome*' : )B—<

Jon's picture
Jon
Offline
Joined: Dec 20 2003
Posts: 2804
I'll just go through and spew

I'll just go through and spew some info on topics 'cause I'm awake and all...

The BSDs’ ports system is pretty good, too, but it takes longer to install everything since it compiles everything instead of installing binaries.

Well, that is right about the ports systems, but there is also the 'packages' system that is used to install binary software. It's not like you're runnig GenToo or something when you install programs in a BSD. Wink

For that matter, BSD might be up your alley if you want some UNIXy Goodness ™. It’s a bit more like traditional UNIX in a lot of ways. And some people say it is even more stable than Linux. That’s more of a matter of opinion than fact, but such are the OS wars.

The BSDs _are_ traditional UNIX. There is a very clear heritage that traces straight back to BellCORE. GNU/Linux tried to avoid this by being a total re-write of how UNIX worked, and SCO is mad 'cause they can't squeeze money out of it. (Only two companies actually paid for the SCO licences out of how ever many they sent threateing letters to) As for OS wars, it's arguable about which is better for a server, but FreeBSD wins the TCP/IP speed argument, OpenBSD wins the security argument, and NetBSD wins the "it'll run on nearly any server you platform you can think of" argument. Don't get me wrong, Linux is great stuff, but the BSDs hold their own, ie. OS X. OS X is simply the most successful desktop UNIX variant, ever. OS X is a BSD with a Mach micro-kernel core, and an awesome GUI that Linux and the rest of the BSDs just can't touch.

Jon.

No one should be protected from the effects of his own stupidity. - Anton Szandor LaVey in 1988 (There is a certain irony in this quote... Tongue)

__________________

I am not in this world to live up to other people's expectations, nor do I feel that the world must live up to mine. - Fritz Perls

Eudimorphodon's picture
Offline
Joined: Dec 21 2003
Posts: 1203
Re:... an awesome GUI

(quote)OS X is a BSD with a Mach micro-kernel core, and an awesome GUI that Linux and the rest of the BSDs just can’t touch.(/quote)

It's funny how different people end up judging the relative merits of things. Frankly, sometimes I think OS X's GUI is far and away the weakest thing about it. Particularly the Finder. :^b

(Admittedly, an annoying evening of having OS X's Finder repeatedly screw up when asked to do simple things like mount an SMB share or navigate an AFP mount can create that sort of impression. Both tasks work fine at the command line, work reliably and repeatably, and work the same no matter *what* blooming OS I'm using. A cruddy, inconsistant brushed-metal GUI with rotten second/third mouse button support and broken control-key sequences is at times worse then no GUI at all.)

Frankly, it's when Linux or the BSD's try emulating the broken, overblown, and buggy GUIs that one finds on Windows or Macintosh platforms they run into problems. Use UNIX how it's supposed to work, and it works right.

Bleah.

And yes, this doesn't have a whole lot to do with the OP. Neither does making this a religous war about who Really RuleZ: Linux, BSD, or whatever.

Frankly, if you don't really hate something about whatever OS you're running, you obviously haven't used it hard enough. Whether it's deep down inside or plastered all over it, at heart they *all* suck. And that applies to commercial UNIXes, redhaired UNIX stepchildren, or weird Finnish UNIX clones, pretty much equally. ;^b

--Peace

rael9's picture
Offline
Joined: Dec 26 2003
Posts: 215
[quote][color=red]Well, that

Quote:

Well, that is right about the ports systems, but there is also the ‘packages’ system that is used to install binary software.

True, but I find the packages system to be more restrictive. It never seems to have the one package I'm looking for. Then again my experience with BSD is somewhat limited.

Quote:

The BSDs _are_ traditional UNIX. There is a very clear heritage that traces straight back to BellCORE.

I realize that. However, the BSDs have progressed a long way from what I would consider "traditional" UNIX. I wasn't trying to start a OS war, I was just giving the OP some info about alternatives to a lost cause.

And as to GUI's suckage, I generally agree. Not that I would want to (or even could) switch to a completely CLI. I'm a graphic designer by trade, so that would be a bit of a problem. Persoanlly, I think OS X is the best of the not-so-great, and it has a lot of potential to be more. That being said, I still use ncftp instead of GUI ftp programs most of the time. I could never go back to OS 9 at this point just for the fact that I need that CLI under the hood to back up the so-so GUI stuff.

James M. Baker
----------
Computer Nerd
----------
[url=http://rael.webhop.org"]My site[/url]

__________________

James M. Baker
----------
Computer Nerd
----------
[url=http://rael.webhop.org"]My site[/url]

Jon's picture
Jon
Offline
Joined: Dec 20 2003
Posts: 2804
[b]I could never go back to O

I could never go back to OS 9 at this point just for the fact that I need that CLI under the hood to back up the so-so GUI stuff.

That's about the same reason why the first mac I bought new was my iBook w/ 10.2. I've always had cheap, older, Macs because I couldn't stand paying Apple's kind of prices for no real command line. A cheap 603 box running BSD or Linux was hard to beat until I could get an 'official' Apple UNIX box.

Of course, now I have a decent iMac (350MHz) runnign OS X.2 that I bought for less than a 100th of what the iBook cost...

Jon.

No one should be protected from the effects of his own stupidity. - Anton Szandor LaVey in 1988 (There is a certain irony in this quote... Tongue)

__________________

I am not in this world to live up to other people's expectations, nor do I feel that the world must live up to mine. - Fritz Perls

catmistake's picture
Offline
Joined: Dec 20 2003
Posts: 1098
http://www.levenez.com/unix/history.html#03

I found this one night... I think everyone should see it (if they haven't already).