Linux on iSeries and System i has been available for more than five years, which, on the surface, seems like a good thing. Back when this century was still vibrant and fresh, everybody thought the whole concept was cool.* Fast forward to today, and there might be a reason to dislike all those freaky Linux penguins.

Let me explain.

You can consider Linux on the System i as an infusion or an infection.

From an infusion standpoint, you can say that Linux on the System i lets companies introduce applications that would never run on i5/OS, bringing real business benefit to System i-based organizations.

On the other hand, you can say that Linux carries unnecessary complexity and that by offering Linux on the System i, IBM is diluting the power of i5/OS and rewarding non-i5/OS investment, ultimately fragmenting the identity of the System i.

Let's put this in perspective by looking at another company — Apple — that also manufactures proprietary computer products. Apple makes both the hardware and the operating system, Mac OSX. Using an Apple product called Boot Camp, you can create a partition and install Windows XP on your Apple Mac, much like you can create a partition and install Linux on your System i. With Boot Camp, however, you have to choose which operating system you want to run when you start up your Mac — you can't run two at the same time unless you use an entirely different product, such as Parallels Desktop for Mac, which lets you operate Windows XP and Mac OSX simultaneously. Of course, there's a world of difference in terms of robustness and scalability when comparing this pairing with the System i and Linux, but you get the point.

So now you know that you can run an application made specifically for Windows XP on a Mac, but in what world would you ever call that application a "Mac" application? To do so would be either insane or ingenious, but it certainly wouldn't make much sense to most people.

Isn't that similar, though, to what IBM has been doing with the System i and Linux?

Sure, you might argue that Linux on System i gets to share disk and memory and lets you take advantage of System i's backup capabilities without needing a separate backup for Linux. Isn't that cool?

Yup. It's wicked cool, but you can do similar things with a Mac and Windows XP. I currently back up my Windows XP environment on my MacBook through just my Mac. It's sweet and easy. However, I've never felt the urge to call a Windows application a Mac application.

Much of the reason Apple survives is because of its strong identity in the marketplace. It's a niche product, the best of its kind, and its success is based on its ability to remain ahead of the competition in ease of use, reliability, and elegance. Like customers of the System i, Mac consumers pay a premium for their computers, and they keep coming back because they appreciate the value if not the outright sophistication of what they have.

The much larger Windows-related world has more applications, more customers, more consultants, more mind share, and more options for peripherals — all of which, paradoxically, tend to add up to increased complexity and expense over time.

There's a reason that the System i has the lowest overall cost of ownership for enterprise servers.

So, then, is the ability to run Windows on a Mac an infusion or an infection?

It's most definitely an infusion for a minority of users, but what would happen if Apple stopped developing its own killer Mac OSX apps? What if the next version of iTunes ran only on Windows Vista? What if Parallels came preinstalled and partitioned with Vista on the Mac? Also, what if ISVs created only Windows Vista versions because, hey, even Mac users could now use their software, right? At what point would Mac OSX simply become a shell operating system used to manage another operating system and kept in production only to service legacy customer applications and satisfy fervently loyal customers willing to pay a premium for the Apple logo?

Linux on POWER

Of course, you can run Linux applications on other platforms, too, such as IBM's System p or z, operating the workloads in different partitions and sharing system resources in similar ways that you do with the System i. Currently, you can run 2,500 Linux applications on POWER-processor-based systems, and in 2006, IBM and its ISVs brought 372 new applications for Linux on POWER to the System i environment through the System i Initiative for Innovation program.

Is this awesome, or is there something fundamentally wrong with the whole concept? Why can't these applications run natively on i5/OS?

There is rarely a technical reason why many applications can't be developed for i5/OS, but there are often economic reasons — too expensive, not enough customers, and the inventive spark that created the application in the first place may have come from someone with expertise in, for example, Linux. Concerns about getting products to the market and having them adopted generate the direction of the merchandise.

Stan Staszak, director of System i/x products for Sirius, the largest IBM solutions provider in the U.S., says that Sirius still hasn't seen a large percentage of customers adopting Linux on System i. "The customers who are utilizing it are typically using a Linux partition for file serving, firewall, or some other standalone utility," Staszak notes. "In other words, I can't think of any customers who are running an ERP suite on Linux running on the i."

If this were the case worldwide, it would seem that Linux is more of an infusion than an infection. What about game-changing killer apps such as the IBM-3Com VCX suite of IP telephony solutions for the System i?

IBM is marketing the solution as a System i product. It runs in a Linux partition on the System i, but if you didn't already know this, it would take a lot of digging to figure it out. IBM is not exactly hiding that fact, and you can argue that mentioning Linux in marketing materials isn't the most important thing you need to discuss to encourage a customer to buy, but couldn't a System i customer install a Linux-based IP Telephony (IPT) solution on a separate box and still avoid paying a premium for a competitive Windows-based IPT solution?

Yes, but again, if you're predominately a System i shop, wouldn't you rather install your IPT solution on your System i?

What If You Had a Choice?

Wouldn't you prefer to run a native i5/OS solution? Definitely. Although IBM could put the resources behind developing such a solution, the company probably couldn't finish it in time to meet market demand.

By partnering with 3Com and using Linux, though, IBM can focus on developing tight System i integration, and it has already blasted into the market with a compelling package. Instead of taking years to deliver something market-ready, IBM has managed to shepherd a product into delivery within months, which has been possible only because the System i runs Linux on POWER. Here's the most important point — even though Linux doesn't run on i5/OS, exactly, it still retains an excellent investment return and is easy to use.

In contrast to some of the inexpensive file server applications of the past, the System i world finally has a killer Linux application.

This example sure feels like an infusion, driving new excitement and sales into the System i world (early reports show superb customer interest), but might it also be a catalyst for a brand-new System i identity? Might it represent an infection that would eventually cause the look and feel of the entire black box to change?

What would that new identity be, exactly? The System i has already shared hardware with System p, and i5/OS is becoming much more than an operating system — it may soon be an environment for managing everything else! The System i is the system — not server — that lets you run almost anything you want. Is that cool? I think so, but it brings up a troubling question: Will becoming a do-everything structure ultimately lead to the destruction of the System i as we know it?

What do you think? Is Linux on System i an infusion or an infection — or is Linux simply a symptom of something bigger?

Regardless, Here's the Good News

Let's say that Linux on System i is definitely an infusion, and, paradoxically, it's also an infection. Does it increase complexity? You bet it does. Most important, Linux on System i represents flexibility. It doesn't matter if you never run an ERP solution on Linux — or on AIX for that matter — on your System i. You still have the choice. No matter what happens, there's a good chance that your organization will grow and become increasingly complex over time. If the System i evolves into an amped-up management "system," so be it — it will still be easier and more efficient than whatever is available from the competition. That's the promise that I see IBM making, and it's great for businesses, just not necessarily great for our favorite black box. If you take the business view, the System i is still an amazing box — scratch that box part — I mean, an amazing system. It's just changing into something bigger and broader and harder to get a handle on.

Who knows, maybe IBM was finally onto something accurate when it started rebranding its servers as systems.

Chris Maxcer is the news editor for System iNEWS, and you can reach Chris at cmaxcer@SystemiNetwork.com [2]. "Nearly all the experts I consulted for this article believe that Linux on System i is a good thing and good for all the reasons you might expect," Maxcer notes. "Partner400's Jon Paris, on the other hand, added a new wrinkle. Because he believes that IBM is now fundamentally a services company, he says that the System i has had a problem because it's hard for consultants to recommend it — because it doesn't require an army to run it. There's a financial incentive to suggest solutions that require more work, and because running other operating systems such as Linux on iS/OS introduces more complexity, the System i is more likely to become profitable for those who are selling services. In addition, Paris says, because of the simplicity inherent in the System i, there is a chance that we can persuade Linux-fucused professionals to appreciate the value and ease of use of the System i."

* OK, maybe not everybody, but definitely the cool geeks. Mel Beckman, for instance, posed the question in late 2000, "So why would you want to run Linux on your AS/400 rather than an external box?" His answer: "Total world domination."