After reading the article on this apple site, it's clear that neither the author, nor his expected audience have a clue about clusters (what did I expect, they're Mac-heads afterall;) ).
Additionally, as one can read at http://www.tacc.utexas.edu/resources/hpcsystem s/ TACC seems to have invested quite a bit into the network, interconnect and storage technology, while by the calculations of your parent poster, there shouldn't be much financial leeway for stuff like that in the apple cluster (and no, gigabit ethernet can not be compared to Myrinet).
Oh, and everyone knows that peak performance numbers mean squat in most real situations.
I should've clarified that I don't buy the "Mono is bad for Linux" hypothesis, and was just talking about Mono and potential problems it might face.
As for MS attacking Linux, there are a lot of reasons why this much harder for MS to do that, like corporate backing - IBM is also said to have one or the other patent - and the fact that Mono _is_ an implementation of something MS "invented".
God damn, haven't you learned anything from the SCO case? It goes like this:
- MS.net becomes successfull - Mono starts gaining momentum, companies will drop Java, convinced they are not tied to MS.net because of Mono - MS, after a while, goes public by saying there seem to be some "problems" with Mono, and eventually goes to court - Mono gets dropped by any company like a hot potato.
I don't follow the Mono hurts linux theory, tho, I just think MS will hurt Mono.
Ahem, just imagie for a moment that in the SCO vs rest-of-the-world comedy SCO had really something going for them, and (more important) therefore people would actually give a shit for what SCO blathers.
Imagine the havoc they could create. Now substitute MS for SCO. See?
If MS' lawyers goes to court with an armee of lawyers and massive documentation about what they think might be infringing in Mono, Mono is dead in the water. No company would touch it anymore, regardless if MS' case has any merit or not.
This is not an interesting analogy. It's far harder for MS to try to shut down Samba by means of patents etc. than it is to shut down mono. It's nearly impossible to make Samba incompatible with new versions of their OS. And even if they did, because of the limited scope of Samba, it would be far easier to catch up.
o, the "worst" that can happen is they get busted for running a pump and dump scheme by the SEC. Not to mention corporate fraud, insider trading and god knows what else; I'm sure there are a variety of charges that could be leveled if it turns out they were intentionally misleading investors for personal gain. This is serious stuff; this is not just slap on the wrist territory. We're talking some real prison time here.
Add to that what everybody seems to forgetting here. This is a Canopy manouver! And IBM knows it (as can be seen by some documents they already submitted to the court). So, this could not only get bad for SCO, or the managers there, an even worse outcome for Canopy would be if IBM went after them. Even out of court, like starting a patent war on Canopy's other companies, etc..
And/me hopes big blue will feel like making an example out of Canopy.
Uh, but it worked in germany, SCO germany _did_ get a fine (and paid), albeit a smallish one. Now SCO germany just STFU about linux, until the courts do their job, and this is how it ought to be.
Can't understand why this is not possible in the usa.
You can't explain the whole situation with the sentence "If Linux goes away, they suddenly have a market again." This is obviously to simple, and also wrong (there's windows and BSD and OS X afterall).
To explain it like that would need the assumption that the people at SCO are _extremely_ dumb, combined with total reality neglect. The simpler explanation (because it needs less extreme assumptions) is to look at it from the Canopy POV. They own a company they know will die, and this manouver is their way to get the most out of the company before this happens. That, btw., is also how IBM sees it IMHO, and because of that their only offensive legal manouver was to drag Canopy into the case.
This annoying feature was already present in one form in IE. If you check "don't start ActiveX controls" (or whatever this option was called), the dumb thing pops up a dialog box complaining about how you'll not see this site in it's full beauty because you don't like ActiveX. For every page, and for every damned control embeded in this page (IIRC, it's a while since I last used IE)
I'm glad the the yes-to-active-x fraction now gets their own piece of the pie;).
Because IBM is in the server business, and the proprietary addons Apple has might make their product (OS X) more attractive for the market than IBMs offering of darwin.
So if they had used Linux in Mac OS X would that have immediately have driven all of their competitors to some other OS?
Strawman. You argued against the GPL and for BSD, so don't take my example to the extreme. Especially not to an area where the BSD vs. GPL debate doesn't apply anymore, as you correctly state.
Better tell me why the corporate investement into linux is so much bigger then into BSD - oh, and OS X doesn't count, because apple's main investments aren't into the kernel.
Ahem, and that's because FreeBSD has the corporate backing it has, compared to linux, heh?
GPL is all about corporations cooperating (sic!), without fearing to be burned that way.
Take your MAC OS X = BSD+Darwin+Cococa (no nitpicking about that formula, please). Do you really think IBM would feel compelled to contribute something important to Darwin under the BSD license, with the effect to make OS X a better performing server, but without in turn profiting from Apples additions? The effect of the BSD license and apples adoption of BSD technology is precisely that from now on no potential competitor of apple will add something to this technology under a free license, if he thinks it might be valuable to apple.
Oh, and btw. the handful of people being caught by microsofts GPL-is-viral-fud are lost cases anyway.
Yeah, and the linked article demonstrates again the dumbassed loudmouthing of some gartner "analyst". "I think it's very helpful," he said. But more information is needed to fully respond to SCO's copyright allegations, he added. "I don't know if the job is complete from this letter," Weiss said.
It would be more helpful if other SCO licensees like Hewlett-Packard Co. or IBM Corp. performed similar analyses and went public with their results, Weiss said.
Sorry for ranting, but God damn, you idiot. IBM wants to destroy SCO (and hopefully seriosly hurt Canopy), not play some stupid public announcement games. Therefore they will say as little as possible outside the court room. I expect very bad surprises for our friends in Utah with the advent of the lawsuit.
And, I may be wrong on that, but I doubt an application on windows is really able to delete itself while running, because of the file locking semantics on windows. I mean, nowhere I read that the network port was closed after the exploit code was issued, so the application continued to run. How could it then delete itself? If this isn't possible, an automatic update (which they incidentally didn't use to push their new corrected version, you have to download it yourself, it seems) had to start another process anyway, to delete the remaining files of the app, so there's no point in remote deleting.
No, it isn't reasonable at all. Try to figure how such an update would work:
1. delete files 2.... 3. profit
(just joking). But seriously, given you have the methods he cites, i.e. reload, shutdown, delete, please explain to me how such an upgrade should work? Remember how windows locks files which are in use.
And why on earth should it be necessary to remotely delete files for an upgrade?? And note that he just talks about reload (i.e. restart), delete, and shutdown, how did they intend to actually automatically transfer the files to the client? And start them?
I think they are implying that hiding your IP in the GUI makes it safe. It's based on the theory that RIAA spies are sitting around with copies of P2P apps and a notepad writing down IPs.
No, he didn't want to imply anything. The context of this sentece which matters for him is exactly this:
It is also a fortunate fact that since Earthstation5 protects you from the RIAA lawsuits and hackers by hiding your ip address, bla bla bla bla
IOW, in worst marketing/politician manner, he wanted to plug once again his message, that's all.
Slashdot Mirror
After reading the article on this apple site, it's clear that neither the author, nor his expected audience have a clue about clusters (what did I expect, they're Mac-heads afterall ;) ).
m s/
Additionally, as one can read at
http://www.tacc.utexas.edu/resources/hpcsyste
TACC seems to have invested quite a bit into the network, interconnect and storage technology, while by the calculations of your parent poster, there shouldn't be much financial leeway for stuff like that in the apple cluster (and no, gigabit ethernet can not be compared to Myrinet).
Oh, and everyone knows that peak performance numbers mean squat in most real situations.
but the numbers jumped at me:
38E+6/6E+2 $ is about 60000 $ per machine. Seems to be a little much for a cluster of "cheap" machines, right?
Isn't there more to it?
Ok, off, reading the article.
I should've clarified that I don't buy the "Mono is bad for Linux" hypothesis, and was just talking about Mono and potential problems it might face.
As for MS attacking Linux, there are a lot of reasons why this much harder for MS to do that, like corporate backing - IBM is also said to have one or the other patent - and the fact that Mono _is_ an implementation of something MS "invented".
Mono starts gaining momentum, companies will drop Java, convinced they are not tied to MS .net because of Mono
Oh dear, this should have read "more companies".
I also should point out that the last bullet point will happen regardless of the merit of the "problems" MS is talking about.
This should have read "more companies".
God damn, haven't you learned anything from the SCO case?
.net becomes successfull .net because of Mono
It goes like this:
- MS
- Mono starts gaining momentum, companies will drop Java, convinced they are not tied to MS
- MS, after a while, goes public by saying there seem to be some "problems" with Mono, and eventually goes to court
- Mono gets dropped by any company like a hot potato.
I don't follow the Mono hurts linux theory, tho, I just think MS will hurt Mono.
Ahem, just imagie for a moment that in the SCO vs rest-of-the-world comedy SCO had really something going for them, and (more important) therefore people would actually give a shit for what SCO blathers.
Imagine the havoc they could create. Now substitute MS for SCO. See?
If MS' lawyers goes to court with an armee of lawyers and massive documentation about what they think might be infringing in Mono, Mono is dead in the water. No company would touch it anymore, regardless if MS' case has any merit or not.
Would Linux be better or worse off without Samba?
This is not an interesting analogy. It's far harder for MS to try to shut down Samba by means of patents etc. than it is to shut down mono.
It's nearly impossible to make Samba incompatible with new versions of their OS. And even if they did, because of the limited scope of Samba, it would be far easier to catch up.
o, the "worst" that can happen is they get busted for running a pump and dump scheme by the SEC. Not to mention corporate fraud, insider trading and god knows what else; I'm sure there are a variety of charges that could be leveled if it turns out they were intentionally misleading investors for personal gain. This is serious stuff; this is not just slap on the wrist territory. We're talking some real prison time here.
/me hopes big blue will feel like making an example out of Canopy.
Add to that what everybody seems to forgetting here. This is a Canopy manouver!
And IBM knows it (as can be seen by some documents they already submitted to the court).
So, this could not only get bad for SCO, or the managers there, an even worse outcome for Canopy would be if IBM went after them. Even out of court, like starting a patent war on Canopy's other companies, etc..
And
Uh, but it worked in germany, SCO germany _did_ get a fine (and paid), albeit a smallish one.
Now SCO germany just STFU about linux, until the courts do their job, and this is how it ought to be.
Can't understand why this is not possible in the usa.
You can't explain the whole situation with the sentence "If Linux goes away, they suddenly have a market again." This is obviously to simple, and also wrong (there's windows and BSD and OS X afterall).
To explain it like that would need the assumption that the people at SCO are _extremely_ dumb, combined with total reality neglect.
The simpler explanation (because it needs less extreme assumptions) is to look at it from the Canopy POV. They own a company they know will die, and this manouver is their way to get the most out of the company before this happens.
That, btw., is also how IBM sees it IMHO, and because of that their only offensive legal manouver was to drag Canopy into the case.
This annoying feature was already present in one form in IE. If you check "don't start ActiveX controls" (or whatever this option was called), the dumb thing pops up a dialog box complaining about how you'll not see this site in it's full beauty because you don't like ActiveX.
;).
For every page, and for every damned control embeded in this page (IIRC, it's a while since I last used IE)
I'm glad the the yes-to-active-x fraction now gets their own piece of the pie
But you can lose patents if you don't inforce them.
No, you're thinking about Trademarks.
Yes, you are right, you didn't argue against the GPL, I didn't put that the right way.
But I really wish you would stop playing semantic games and answer to my main points, otherwise one might conclude you haven't any arguments left.
Because IBM is in the server business, and the proprietary addons Apple has might make their product (OS X) more attractive for the market than IBMs offering of darwin.
So if they had used Linux in Mac OS X would that have immediately have driven all of their competitors to some other OS?
Strawman. You argued against the GPL and for BSD, so don't take my example to the extreme. Especially not to an area where the BSD vs. GPL debate doesn't apply anymore, as you correctly state.
Better tell me why the corporate investement into linux is so much bigger then into BSD - oh, and OS X doesn't count, because apple's main investments aren't into the kernel.
Ahem, and that's because FreeBSD has the corporate backing it has, compared to linux, heh?
GPL is all about corporations cooperating (sic!), without fearing to be burned that way.
Take your MAC OS X = BSD+Darwin+Cococa (no nitpicking about that formula, please).
Do you really think IBM would feel compelled to contribute something important to Darwin under the BSD license, with the effect to make OS X a better performing server, but without in turn profiting from Apples additions?
The effect of the BSD license and apples adoption of BSD technology is precisely that from now on no potential competitor of apple will add something to this technology under a free license, if he thinks it might be valuable to apple.
Oh, and btw. the handful of people being caught by microsofts GPL-is-viral-fud are lost cases anyway.
Yeah, and the linked article demonstrates again the dumbassed loudmouthing of some gartner "analyst".
"I think it's very helpful," he said. But more information is needed to fully respond to SCO's copyright allegations, he added. "I don't know if the job is complete from this letter," Weiss said.
It would be more helpful if other SCO licensees like Hewlett-Packard Co. or IBM Corp. performed similar analyses and went public with their results, Weiss said.
Sorry for ranting, but God damn, you idiot. IBM wants to destroy SCO (and hopefully seriosly hurt Canopy), not play some stupid public announcement games. Therefore they will say as little as possible outside the court room. I expect very bad surprises for our friends in Utah with the advent of the lawsuit.
Can they conceive of a possible usage for a "Hi-Speed" keyboard?
Perhaps they just want high keyboard repeat rates?
And, I may be wrong on that, but I doubt an application on windows is really able to delete itself while running, because of the file locking semantics on windows.
I mean, nowhere I read that the network port was closed after the exploit code was issued, so the application continued to run. How could it then delete itself?
If this isn't possible, an automatic update (which they incidentally didn't use to push their new corrected version, you have to download it yourself, it seems) had to start another process anyway, to delete the remaining files of the app, so there's no point in remote deleting.
Dubios, dubios
Weren't USB 2.0 "highspeed" devices actually the slow ones? So, if you have a slow device, it is highspeed, isn't it?
Or was it Big Speed?
Wait.
USB2.0 Huge Speed. No, that wasn't it
I'm seriously confused.
No, it isn't reasonable at all. Try to figure how such an update would work:
...
1. delete files
2.
3. profit
(just joking).
But seriously, given you have the methods he cites, i.e. reload, shutdown, delete, please explain to me how such an upgrade should work? Remember how windows locks files which are in use.
And why on earth should it be necessary to remotely delete files for an upgrade?? And note that he just talks about reload (i.e. restart), delete, and shutdown, how did they intend to actually automatically transfer the files to the client? And start them?
No, he didn't want to imply anything. The context of this sentece which matters for him is exactly this:
IOW, in worst marketing/politician manner, he wanted to plug once again his message, that's all.
What an assclown.
If some one were to publish this SysV code in a country (server hosted in a country) that does not have copyright laws, [...]
Not needed
If it were avalible on such a server, how many line by line comparisons would we have in a week?
Every comparison you can imagine.
Print out every mail they sent and force feed (literally) it to them!
Oh man, whaddaya think why I wrote that "half joking" tag? Obviously this whole thing is too complex to deal with in one sentence.
But I'm not willing to invest more in an answer to an article which argues with this "who is more technologically savvy" nonsense.