Slashdot Mirror
HP Sues Oracle For Dropping Itanium Support
Fudge Factor 3000 writes "HP is suing Oracle for a breach of contract, claiming that Oracle was contractually obliged to continue supporting the Itanium architecture, which they recently nixed support for. Oracle has fired back that Itanium is essentially a dead architecture and will soon be discontinued by Intel. And so the blood feud continues between Oracle and HP."
Why in my day Oracle had to support my UNIVAC for fifteen miles in the snow barefoot uphill both ways!
It's in the contract. I give it three years and then we all will know: THE ITANIUM IS DEAD !!
and any other company following this issue is that they're essentially at the mercy of the business decisions of a third company, Intel, and that's not a very smart business position to get in in the first place.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
http://www.theregister.co.uk/1999/10/29/intel_execs_outline_y2k_chip/
12 years of sarcasm!
.. this means one of two things - Oracle are lying (believable) or Intel are producing a new core which, albeit with the Itanium name, is different enough that Oracle are excusing themselves from new R&D
Or I'm wrong. Suggest something better, and I may think it the case.
Makes sense. HP probably has several contractual obligations of their own since there are many large corporate clusters which are using HP-UX running on a shitload of Itanium systems.
You are the epitome of modern corporate culture. You destroyed the Alpha and are letting VMS rot. You outsource or offshore everything that isn't bolted down, but nothing is improved. Under Fiorina you demonstrated precisely how to run a company down for short term profit while cosying up to the corporation-friendly government. Hell, you've even ruined your reputation for building hardy calculators. Over a decade after this mess started, the only thing you have left to be proud of is the propotion of your profits which come from selling printer ink.
It's a small wonder zombie Hewlett and Packard haven't risen from the grave, given a new lease of life in death by recently shuffled Olsen, to personally escort every HP executive to the lowest region of hell.
Oracle should rename mySQL as "Oracle for Itanium" and send it to HP.
Now Oracle just has to discontinue another death architecture: SPARC
If Oracle wants to countersue HP for dropping the Alpha, I'd be happy to testify on their behalf. The idiots at HP killed off one of the best architectures for scientific computations ever.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
There's a certain amount of FUD in Oracle's comments. Yet, the reason why the FUD could be so successful is that it's so plausible. Taking the figures from Wikipedia as gospel, the four top architectures for enterprise deployment in 2008 were (in order, first to fourth) x86-64, POWER, SPARC, and Itanium (or Itanic, if you prefer - as I do.) That being the case, it's eminently possible that Itanic is (as the nickname suggests) a sinking ship, and that HP and Intel are holding on for as long as they can before they bail, probably to x86-64. Microsoft's bailed - where's the future support for Windows on Itanic? - as has Redhat, leaving HP the only OS vendor supporting Itanic in any significant way (HP-UX, and - to a much lesser extent - VMS and NonStop.)
So HP has no alternative but to try to fight Oracle's decision as hard as they can. If they don't, it adds to the perception that Itanic is dying. But if they do, it draws attention to Oracle's words. They're between a rock and a hard place.
My bet? IBM's going nowhere. Oracle is going to stick it out with SPARC for at least the next couple of years; whether they keep developing it or quietly put a transition system in place for Solaris on x86 remains to be seen. If any of the remaining big Unix vendors are going to abandon their custom platform in the next five to ten years (and probably the market to boot in the process), it'll be HP. Considering that they killed Alpha, I'd say it's nothing more than they deserve.
IANAL but it seems to me that if you have a contract with someone that says you are going to support their hardware they have already purchased, then it is irrelevant that the hardware vendor *might* be discontinuing the product. Even *IF* Intel discontinues it, Oracle should still be bound by their support contracts.
I confirm, you are not a lawyer. Breaching contracts and having our clients let go off scott free is the basis of our business.
If Itanium is dead, then why does Intel have all this architectural investment?
Does anyone care about anachronisms like OpenVMS anymore? Or the two zombie platforms it's supported on?
For everytime I had to call for support, or try to use their itrc, or everytime I had to come up with a model number from a device that had 20 different numbers on it, none of them matching the format they expected, for everytime I had to deal with HPUX...serves them right.
The Mongolian cluster-fuck that the Intel-HP-Oracle triangle centered around Itanium has become, was spotted way way before any of their management drank the Kool-Aid. (And oh man, they were guzzling the Itanium Kool-Aid by the gallon). Google "Itanic".
I just wish f'ing MS would give me a damn checkbox in WSUS to exclude Itanic updates so I could quit wasting time and bandwidth downloading and excluding updates for a dead platform that nobody uses.
grep -iw skynet
So, do they have a contractual obligation to keep the port going or not? Whether it's a dead architecture doesn't matter if they took the money and there's no 'dead architecture' clause in the contract.
Hey, Oracle guys: talk to the Redhat Itanium team. Last I heard they were passing the hat around the office and were going to buy the remaining few Itanium machines left in the world and throw them off the roof at HQ (and then promptly recycle the remains, I'm sure).
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
The same could easily be said about the sparc architecture.
> why is Intel continuing to beat the obviously VERY dead horse that is Itanic? Its a giant flop,
When you look at it from a Marketing point of view, Itanium was perhaps the most successful chip in history -- not because it sold well, but because it bought time for x86 to move into 64-bit computing.
Recall that a few years back there were a number of promising 64-bit architectures that were a lot cleaner than Itanium. HP's PA-RISC and SGI's MIPS were two of them. Yet even before production Itanium chips launched, the CEO of SGI and the Executive VP of computers at HP made the decisions to move away from HPUX-on-PA-RISC and IRIX-on-MIPS in favor of NT on Itanium, pretty much killing their entire computing product lines, and killing R&D on the server versions of both chip families.
Seems the guy (yeah, same guy) who made those decisions was rewarded with a President and COO job at Microsoft a bit later.
Intel may not have won with actual sales of Itanium hardware (and I wonder if it even wanted to - from it's point of view X86 was even better because HP had some joint-ownership-rights in Itanium). But it sure won by killing the competitions 64-bit computing roadmaps from the PR of Itanium alone.
http://quiller8771.blog.com/2011/05/26/double-s-fall-it-technology-in-the-market/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/05/13/sgi_belluzzo/
HP has to beg a single vendor to continue producing wares for it's dying chip, because that is the only remaining justification for producing servers based on Itanium. Give it up already HP. Oracle has no such contractual obligation.
I don't care if they contacted to support an Atari 800 for 40 more years. If they breach contract they are liable for damages. That the Itanium is going away is not relevant to the discussion at all. They agreed to do it, so they have to. ( unless there was some special clause in there tied to availability from Intel, which it sounds like there was not )
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Apollo Computer was shipping the 64-bit PRISM workstation when they were bought by HP. HP killed the PRISM because they were going to do their own 64-bit architecture.
Digital was shipping the 64 bit Alpha machine when they were bought by Compaq which was then bought by HP. HP killed the Alpha because they were committing to Intel's Itanium.
So what happens? HP, the owner of two, market-proven, debugged and viable 64 bit architectures finds itself backing the loser, having killed both of the projects they bought and paid for.
And so, what is HP's 64 bit architecture in the end? The x86_64.
You've really got to wonder what kind of idiots were running the company.
When Digital Equipment Corporation had a 500MHz 21164 Alpha at 83MHz bus is when Intel was still at a 100MHz clock and 33MHz bus. Intel reverse-engineered much of Digital's technology to inspire (if not obfuscate their plagiarism) into what would become Pentium 4.
The capabilities of the Pentium Pro was that the on-die cache was operating at the clock speed of the CPU, thus a 200MHz Pentium Pro with 256KB (upwards to 512KB and 1024KB) would operate at 200MHz rather than it's plain 66MHz bus, yet the Pentium 2 400MHz CPU had a 100MHz bus that it's cache operated at significantly lower than the Pentium Pro.
Not to mention that DEC had discovered their 21164 had a technical glitch that when minorly corrected became their 21264 Alpha and was the first in history(1999) to reach 1GHz and even a 100MHz bus with 256bit access while Intel Pentium was still on 64bit access. You see minor chip revisions like 21164a/b/c but then the company engineers completely overlooked something else, and fixed in in the 21264 line, but in reality DEC by design had the first 1GHz processor as eartly as 1995. It's sad today that we know we had the capability of technology under our noses as early as 1995 that could run Doom3 in SOFTWARE RENDERING. By buying cheaper Intel and AMD hardware, a true AMERICAN company on fabrication lines in The United States, DEC was pilfered by Intel-bribed engineers and liquidated from buy-out to buy-out to inferior technolgy that didn't even use the full capacity of system RAM or anything right. When DEC's original CEO Olsen (if I remember correctly) stepped out of the company by some god-damn transients, then the company was mothballed.
Intel is the biggest peice of shit to ever exist, as though they were never realy in the business of designing and fabricating chips but to use money to bribe everyone into their monstrous legal image and claim as their own, while true American companies started building from the ground-up. All of this is in fassion of a weird Israel-first cult ever since Germany and Russia got hit hard by a common enemy (rhymes with guess Who) after World War 2.
"In a death, a member of Fight Club has a name. This man's name is Robert Paulson."
Well, @ the time HP had their agreement w/ Intel, they were the only ones w/ any significant VLIW expertise (having bought both Multiflow & Cydrome), and there was a many horse race w/ Alpha, Power, MIPS IV and Sparc. So HP wanted a compelling selling point for their processor, and saw it in getting in w/ Intel.
So HP's loyalty to Itanium precedes their acquisition of Compaq and the Alpha, and even if HP didn't have any Itanium plans, there was no reason to prefer Alpha to PA-RISC. Compaq acquiring DEC made little sense given their non-support to the Alpha. Acer or someone like that should have bought DEC - Alpha would still be around today.
Of course, @ the time, few predicted that ARM would end up being the RISC standard. As a result, Microsoft has no advantage over Apple or Google as it does apps for different platforms, be it x86-64 or ARM. Had MS supported MIPS to this day, they could have used the new Prodigy architecture for their Windows 8 platform, for which they wanted a native 64-bit processor, which ARM doesn't have, thereby locking them to Intel.
As for this dispute, Oracle probably ain't willfully sabotaging HP - they're just being lazy about supporting an outgoing platform. In any company, the marketing people want to accelerate the transition from old to new, and Oracle is probably being accurate when they say they've stopped bug fixes in the older version, since they have probably diverted all their dev teams to the newer one. Co-incidentally, they won't be supporting Itanium on the newer version, which is a sound business decision - Microsoft won't be supporting Itanium on Windows Server 201x, Red Hat won't be supporting Itanium in future versions, and I believe neither will Suse. So Oracle ends up looking like they're trying to replace customers' Integrity servers w/ their own Sparc servers, but any customer would be stupid to make such a switch, given their investment in such hardware. Instead, such customers should look @ switching to alternatives. Is SAP supported on Integrity servers?
So the only thing Itanium will be running will be HP-UX, for which HP needn't have killed PA-RISC in the first place. Essentially, what this chapter shows is that VLIW is probably a great architecture for DSPs, graphics accelerators and ASICs, but horrible as a general purpose CPU, given that every compiler that compiles code for it would have to do a lot more than a RISC or CISC compiler would, like scheduling instructions, maximizing the parallelism, etc. For the application specific purposes, there are only a limited set of routines that need to be so optimally compiled. For a general purpose CPU, that scope is unlimited.
Is it too late for HP to resurrect the PA-RISC and resume selling their Unix servers w/ that? B'cos nobody else, not even SGI, now sells Itanium systems, and even Cray has gone w/ Opteron.
As iggymanz noted, Alpha died when the IP was sold to Intel, along w/ the fabs. There were some initiatives like Alphapowered, which went nowhere.
At any rate, Compaq could have taken the Alpha and joined the ranks of IBM, HP and Sun as owners of a major architecture, but they didn't. Instead, they remained an x86 house, and only made use of DEC's legendary service lines. It was under them that support for NT was dropped, and once that happened, the architecture was dead: people were not going to prefer OSF/1 to HP/UX or AIX, let alone Solaris or Linux.
When HP did acquire Compaq, they still had the PA-RISC, which was @ par w/ the Alpha, and had more widespread industry support, since HP/UX had been around from the days of Ultrix. So they would have been stupid to support Alpha for new business, and just supported legacy business w/ it.
I agree that it's tragic that the Alpha is dead, but I blame Microsoft mainly for its short vision. Today, they're said to be wanting a 64-bit processor for Windows 8, and ARM has nothing, thereby locking them to x86-64. Had MS never dropped support for MIPS and Alpha, they could have used something like Prodigy for their Windows 8 tablets, and Alpha (it would not have been dropped even by Compaq had it been successful) for Windows 8 workstations & servers.
Itanium is not VLIW, it's EPIC. Some differences (from Wiki):
Each group of multiple software instructions is called a bundle. Each of the bundles has a stop bit indicating if this set of operations is depended upon by the subsequent bundle. With this capability, future implementations can be built to issue multiple bundles in parallel. The dependency information is calculated by the compiler, so the hardware does not have to perform operand dependency checking.
A software prefetch instruction is used as a type of data prefetch. This prefetch increases the chances for a cache hit for loads, and can indicate the degree of temporal locality needed in various levels of the cache.
A speculative load instruction is used to speculatively load data before it is known whether it will be used (bypassing control dependencies), or whether it will be modified before it is used (bypassing data dependencies).
A check load instruction aids speculative loads by checking whether a speculative load was dependent on a later store, and thus must be reloaded.
If they do what you're saying, that will make them RISC. Why would HP accept that, when they could just dust off the PA-7200 and pick up from there? They'd then regain the advantage they had over Sun/Oracle in terms of performance, and at least have more of an user base.
Also, VLIW was mainly HP's IP - acquired from Multiflow & Cydrome. Not Intel's. It's Intel, though, that's changed it from VLIW to EPIC.
Isn't Linux already on Sparc, courtesy Sun? Why would Oracle have to port another distribution to it? And I'm not even counting other unixes that run on SPARC, such as Red Hat, Debian, the BSDs, and so on: as far as unixes go, Sparc has about as much support as x86, and the stuff it doesn't have - Unixware, AIX, OSF/1, it doesn't need.
It's true that Sun did do a good job parallelizing the platform. It also has the widest range of legacy apps for any Unix - from CAD/CAM stuff right down to Enterprise stuff. Oracle recognized it, and has done a good job so far supporting it. Also, Sun had adopted the Opteron as one of its platforms, and Oracle has that as well for its Enterprise Linux. Just that they'd do well to encourage others who support Sparc, like Red Hat, to keep supporting it. I don't see how, though, given that they're competing w/ Red Hat on 2 dimensions.
Incidentally, what happened to the EU's objection to Oracle buying Sun re: its ending up w/ 2 major databases - Oracle and MySQL? Does that mean that Oracle gets to choose who MySQL supports, and who it doesn't? Looks like a major conflict of interests.
Oracle are lying about what? There can't be more than a few hundred Itanium users around the world, and Intel has been signaling for years that the product line is dead and won't be replaced. Maybe HP shouldn't have shut down its own CPU development and sold its designs (along with the designs of the DEC Alpha) to Intel, but they did. Now that product line has failed and Oracle is just making an obvious business decision.
sPh
Uh, DEC had already sold all Alpha-related intellectual property, along w/ the StrongARM, to Intel. There was nothing for HP to sell except PA-RISC IP, which wouldn't have done much for Intel since they already had the Alpha IP. Only thing that Intel thought might be useful to them was VLIW expertise, but they turned out to be wrong about that.
HP's mistake was closing down PA-RISC, thereby making HP/UX a new OS once again. Had they kept PA-RISC, HP/UX would have been a more mature OS than even Solaris/Sparc. Itanium would have made sense had all those other OSs been ported to it and been successful, giving HP a range of choices in addition to HP/UX, but a lot of those, like SCO's Monterrey, dropped like flies. Incidentally, anyone remember whether Solaris was ever ported to it? Porting OVMS or NonStop to this platform was one of the most worthless things Compaq ever did - as someone else pointed out, Compaq could have just retained the 21364 and made MPP systems out of it w/ no new R&D, and used it for existing OVMS customers, as well as ported NonStop to that. In fact, it would even have been a good platform for XP-64.
So now, Itanium is just a new CPU for an OS that used to run on a totally different RISC CPU? Looks like such a waste. But if Intel drops it, they'll look like a mere second source to AMD.
... if they were to drop their Integrity servers.
I mean, granted, they have the Proliant servers and other legacy x86 servers. But so does everyone else. Why would someone prefer an HP to a Dell, or even a Cisco, when those companies have fewer vested interests than HP or Oracle?
Right now, their variety is one of their selling points - HP/UX-Integrity, Windows-Server-x864, and until now, both Linux & Windows-Server on Integrity as well as x864. But if they were to drop Integrity, how'd they be any different?
HP used to have NEXTSTEP as one of their options on the PA-RISC. Can they take something like the GNUstep OS and try building another platform for Integrity? Or how about Integrity based workstations, running Debian or GNUstep? Or try getting Cray interested?
Biggots is the name of a chain store that bought-up Big Lots, is it not?
You mad!
Are you white or jewish? See here http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2245866&cid=36480118
http://www.waylanderskeep.com/2009/12/jewish-talmud-quotes/
===
1. Sanhedrin 59a: "Murdering Goyim is like killing a wild animal."
2. Abodah Zara 26b: "Even the best of the Gentiles should be killed."
3. Sanhedrin 59a: "A goy (Gentile) who pries into The Law (Talmud) is guilty of death."
4. Libbre David 37: "To communicate anything to a Goy about our religious relations would be equal to the killing of all Jews, for if the Goyim knew what we teach about them, they would kill us openly."
5. Libbre David 37: "If a Jew be called upon to explain any part of the rabbinic books, he ought to give only a false explanation. Who ever will violate this order shall be put to death."
6. Yebhamoth 11b: "Sexual intercourse with a little girl is permitted if she is three years of age."
7. Schabouth Hag. 6d: "Jews may swear falsely by use of subterfuge wording."
8. Hilkkoth Akum X1: "Do not save Goyim in danger of death."
9. Hilkkoth Akum X1: "Show no mercy to the Goyim."
10. Choschen Hamm 388, 15: "If it can be proven that someone has given the money of Israelites to the Goyim, a way must be found after prudent consideration to wipe him off the face of the earth."
11. Choschen Hamm 266,1: "A Jew may keep anything he finds which belongs to the Akum (Gentile). For he who returns lost property (to Gentiles) sins against the Law by increasing the power of the transgressors of the Law. It is praiseworthy, however, to return lost property if it is done to honor the name of God, namely, if by so doing, Christians will praise the Jews and look upon them as honorable people."
12. Szaaloth-Utszabot, The Book of Jore Dia 17: "A Jew should and must make a false oath when the Goyim asks if our books contain anything against them."
13. Baba Necia 114, 6: "The Jews are human beings, but the nations of the world are not human beings but beasts."
14. Simeon Haddarsen, fol. 56-D: "When the Messiah comes every Jew will have 2800 slaves."
15. Nidrasch Talpioth, p. 225-L: "Jehovah created the non-Jew in human form so that the Jew would not have to be served by beasts. The non-Jew is consequently an animal in human form, and condemned to serve the Jew day and night."
16. Aboda Sarah 37a: "A Gentile girl who is three years old can be violated."
17. Gad. Shas. 2:2: "A Jew may violate but not marry a non-Jewish girl."
18. Tosefta. Aboda Zara B, 5: "If a goy kills a goy or a Jew, he is responsible; but if a Jew kills a goy, he is NOT responsible."
19. Schulchan Aruch, Choszen Hamiszpat 388: "It is permitted to kill a Jewish denunciator everywhere. It is permitted to kill him even before he denounces."
20. Schulchan Aruch, Choszen Hamiszpat 348: "All property of other nations belongs to the Jewish nation, which, consequently, is entitled to seize upon it without any scruples."
21. Tosefta, Abda Zara VIII, 5: "How to interpret the word 'robbery.' A goy is forbidden to steal, rob, or take women slaves, etc., from a goy or from a Jew. But a Jew is NOT forbidden to do all this to a goy."
22. Seph. Jp., 92, 1: "God has given the Jews power over the possessions and blood of all nations."
23. Schulchan Aruch, Choszen Hamiszpat 156: "When a Jew has a Gentile in his clutches, another Jew may go to the same Gentile, lend him money and in turn deceive him, so that the Gentile shall be ruined. For the property of a Gentile, according to our law, belongs to no one, and the first Jew that passes has full right to seize it."
24. Schulchan Aruch, Johre Deah, 122: "A Jew is forbidden to drink from a glass of wine which a Gentile has touched, because the touch has made the wine unclean."
25. Nedarim 23b: "He who desires that none of his vows made during the year be valid, let him stand at the beginning of the year and declare, 'Every vow which I may make in the future shall be null'. His vows are then invalid."
http://www.waylanderskeep.com/2009/12/jewish-talmud-quotes/
===
1. Sanhedrin 59a: "Murdering Goyim is like killing a wild animal."
2. Abodah Zara 26b: "Even the best of the Gentiles should be killed."
3. Sanhedrin 59a: "A goy (Gentile) who pries into The Law (Talmud) is guilty of death."
4. Libbre David 37: "To communicate anything to a Goy about our religious relations would be equal to the killing of all Jews, for if the Goyim knew what we teach about them, they would kill us openly."
5. Libbre David 37: "If a Jew be called upon to explain any part of the rabbinic books, he ought to give only a false explanation. Who ever will violate this order shall be put to death."
6. Yebhamoth 11b: "Sexual intercourse with a little girl is permitted if she is three years of age."
7. Schabouth Hag. 6d: "Jews may swear falsely by use of subterfuge wording."
8. Hilkkoth Akum X1: "Do not save Goyim in danger of death."
9. Hilkkoth Akum X1: "Show no mercy to the Goyim."
10. Choschen Hamm 388, 15: "If it can be proven that someone has given the money of Israelites to the Goyim, a way must be found after prudent consideration to wipe him off the face of the earth."
11. Choschen Hamm 266,1: "A Jew may keep anything he finds which belongs to the Akum (Gentile). For he who returns lost property (to Gentiles) sins against the Law by increasing the power of the transgressors of the Law. It is praiseworthy, however, to return lost property if it is done to honor the name of God, namely, if by so doing, Christians will praise the Jews and look upon them as honorable people."
12. Szaaloth-Utszabot, The Book of Jore Dia 17: "A Jew should and must make a false oath when the Goyim asks if our books contain anything against them."
13. Baba Necia 114, 6: "The Jews are human beings, but the nations of the world are not human beings but beasts."
14. Simeon Haddarsen, fol. 56-D: "When the Messiah comes every Jew will have 2800 slaves."
15. Nidrasch Talpioth, p. 225-L: "Jehovah created the non-Jew in human form so that the Jew would not have to be served by beasts. The non-Jew is consequently an animal in human form, and condemned to serve the Jew day and night."
16. Aboda Sarah 37a: "A Gentile girl who is three years old can be violated."
17. Gad. Shas. 2:2: "A Jew may violate but not marry a non-Jewish girl."
18. Tosefta. Aboda Zara B, 5: "If a goy kills a goy or a Jew, he is responsible; but if a Jew kills a goy, he is NOT responsible."
19. Schulchan Aruch, Choszen Hamiszpat 388: "It is permitted to kill a Jewish denunciator everywhere. It is permitted to kill him even before he denounces."
20. Schulchan Aruch, Choszen Hamiszpat 348: "All property of other nations belongs to the Jewish nation, which, consequently, is entitled to seize upon it without any scruples."
21. Tosefta, Abda Zara VIII, 5: "How to interpret the word 'robbery.' A goy is forbidden to steal, rob, or take women slaves, etc., from a goy or from a Jew. But a Jew is NOT forbidden to do all this to a goy."
22. Seph. Jp., 92, 1: "God has given the Jews power over the possessions and blood of all nations."
23. Schulchan Aruch, Choszen Hamiszpat 156: "When a Jew has a Gentile in his clutches, another Jew may go to the same Gentile, lend him money and in turn deceive him, so that the Gentile shall be ruined. For the property of a Gentile, according to our law, belongs to no one, and the first Jew that passes has full right to seize it."
24. Schulchan Aruch, Johre Deah, 122: "A Jew is forbidden to drink from a glass of wine which a Gentile has touched, because the touch has made the wine unclean."
25. Nedarim 23b: "He who desires that none of his vows made during the year be valid, let him stand at the beginning of the year and declare, 'Every vow which I may make in the future shall be null'. His vows are then invalid."
http://www.waylanderskeep.com/2009/12/jewish-talmud-quotes/
Goyims, Gentiles, and Akum are anyone non-jewish.
===
1. Sanhedrin 59a: "Murdering Goyim is like killing a wild animal."
2. Abodah Zara 26b: "Even the best of the Gentiles should be killed."
3. Sanhedrin 59a: "A goy (Gentile) who pries into The Law (Talmud) is guilty of death."
4. Libbre David 37: "To communicate anything to a Goy about our religious relations would be equal to the killing of all Jews, for if the Goyim knew what we teach about them, they would kill us openly."
5. Libbre David 37: "If a Jew be called upon to explain any part of the rabbinic books, he ought to give only a false explanation. Who ever will violate this order shall be put to death."
6. Yebhamoth 11b: "Sexual intercourse with a little girl is permitted if she is three years of age."
7. Schabouth Hag. 6d: "Jews may swear falsely by use of subterfuge wording."
8. Hilkkoth Akum X1: "Do not save Goyim in danger of death."
9. Hilkkoth Akum X1: "Show no mercy to the Goyim."
10. Choschen Hamm 388, 15: "If it can be proven that someone has given the money of Israelites to the Goyim, a way must be found after prudent consideration to wipe him off the face of the earth."
11. Choschen Hamm 266,1: "A Jew may keep anything he finds which belongs to the Akum (Gentile). For he who returns lost property (to Gentiles) sins against the Law by increasing the power of the transgressors of the Law. It is praiseworthy, however, to return lost property if it is done to honor the name of God, namely, if by so doing, Christians will praise the Jews and look upon them as honorable people."
12. Szaaloth-Utszabot, The Book of Jore Dia 17: "A Jew should and must make a false oath when the Goyim asks if our books contain anything against them."
13. Baba Necia 114, 6: "The Jews are human beings, but the nations of the world are not human beings but beasts."
14. Simeon Haddarsen, fol. 56-D: "When the Messiah comes every Jew will have 2800 slaves."
15. Nidrasch Talpioth, p. 225-L: "Jehovah created the non-Jew in human form so that the Jew would not have to be served by beasts. The non-Jew is consequently an animal in human form, and condemned to serve the Jew day and night."
16. Aboda Sarah 37a: "A Gentile girl who is three years old can be violated."
17. Gad. Shas. 2:2: "A Jew may violate but not marry a non-Jewish girl."
18. Tosefta. Aboda Zara B, 5: "If a goy kills a goy or a Jew, he is responsible; but if a Jew kills a goy, he is NOT responsible."
19. Schulchan Aruch, Choszen Hamiszpat 388: "It is permitted to kill a Jewish denunciator everywhere. It is permitted to kill him even before he denounces."
20. Schulchan Aruch, Choszen Hamiszpat 348: "All property of other nations belongs to the Jewish nation, which, consequently, is entitled to seize upon it without any scruples."
21. Tosefta, Abda Zara VIII, 5: "How to interpret the word 'robbery.' A goy is forbidden to steal, rob, or take women slaves, etc., from a goy or from a Jew. But a Jew is NOT forbidden to do all this to a goy."
22. Seph. Jp., 92, 1: "God has given the Jews power over the possessions and blood of all nations."
23. Schulchan Aruch, Choszen Hamiszpat 156: "When a Jew has a Gentile in his clutches, another Jew may go to the same Gentile, lend him money and in turn deceive him, so that the Gentile shall be ruined. For the property of a Gentile, according to our law, belongs to no one, and the first Jew that passes has full right to seize it."
24. Schulchan Aruch, Johre Deah, 122: "A Jew is forbidden to drink from a glass of wine which a Gentile has touched, because the touch has made the wine unclean."
25. Nedarim 23b: "He who desires that none of his vows made during the year be valid, let him stand at the beginning of the year and declare, 'Every vow which I may make in the future shall be null'. His vows are then invalid."