They want the T2 processors, which are selling bangup to folks who have legacy SPARC source code commitments. They will want Solaris and Containers to serve the same market: folks doing legacy recaps right now are collapsing plural SPARC servers into containers (zones or LDOMS) on T2 boxen.
They of course want Java, and related.
Sun has a major not very visible slice of telecomms server sales. It's their ATCA line. It was more successful than all the other parties thought. IBM wants that.
And Open Storage, clouded though the lawsuits may be, IBM wants that.
And some other things. Like Thumpers, which are selling quite a lot, and make awesome components for small VTLs (disk backup targets).
And last, but not least: Sun's patent portfolio. Capacitive inductance, anyone? Well, and an army of other patents, of course.
Well, cheaper? Perhaps. But more profitable, yes, because they will end up with wider margins with the Open Storage appliance. Also, this will give them more leeway when it comes to out competing NetApp, so yes, cheaper, if you negotiate.
I really disagree with your summary. It's not a new mainframe, it's a vast simplification, rearchitecting primarily the software in actuality, to depend on a bunch of computing parts that you pretty much don't care if they fail. And that's the key: software. If you're s/w doesn't or can't work that way, you'd be insane to copy Google in any way.
Anyone else have RAM modules degrade over time? I've never seen this.
Yes. My ram used to degrade over time. And then I put an APC UPS between me and the wall. Now the memory does not degrade. If you follow my meaning.
C//
Re:Islamic groups are pushing censorship worldwide
on
UN Attacks Free Speech
·
· Score: 1
Well. Your observation is almost astute. Key word: almost.
If it were merely an issue of past changes to standards, that would be one thing, but an objector is concerned with discussing little things like God's universal morality and the like. And since presumably the would-be Islamist would like us to believe that their Allah is alive now, as then, we can judge the action in the present, surely?
I hope you're right about the future. Perhaps they will give up this rather silly idea of an ever-living creator-whats-it that is the one and only moral authority.
I'll second the other poster. Sun used the source license they did in order to specifically make themselves incompatible with the GPL. They knew this integration hurdle would occur.
More to the point, there is nothing whatsoever keeping them from dual licensing, once under the GPL and once again under the CDDL. And yet they won't.
I can't really argue with their decision. If they do it, Red Hat will take their stuff right away.
I like these two posts, because they illustrate a very common schism: the difference between one kind of career planning and another: 1) I'm looking for a job to make money, lots of money, 2) I am looking for a job I will love.
The schism does not just happen in the computer sciences. It happens in medicine, too. You'd be surprised at the number of folks who invest in med school only to realize after they've paid for med school, during their residency, that they don't like doctoring one bit.
A company that sells an exploitation framework doesn't have to have a very good contract. They don't have to go to court to get their money. They just tell their customers to pay and they pay. Because something bad might happen to their computers if they don't pay.
Right. A company, conducting a legitimate business, would commit a felony and risk dechartering. Mmmm, hmmm. Immunity has been around for a good 8 years now, you know.
Furthermore, the law does not prohibit a company from being a monopoly: it only prohibits certain behaviors once you are one, or certain behaviors in attempting to be one. To put it plainly, it is "monopolizing" that is illegal, not "being a monopoly".
This is all disregarding the legal grant of the monopoly, in the form of patents, that one enjoys from the government of course.
There are long standing rumors, unconfirmed but highly believable, that x86 licenses are non transferable. I.e., VIA could buy Nvidia, but not vice versa.
You are not merely behaving as a "skeptic"... you did indeed accuse the author of lying (and without evidence) which is a lot different than skepticism. Skepticism is not a shield for rude assaults on other people, sir.
Virtually 100% all current software would work: Except, you know, anything that needs 3d hardware acceleration...
So, your saying that MS sucks too much and does not have the resources to bring their product up the match their competitors who are already on the market? I'm not buying it.
There is no virtualization product on the market that has 100% support of hardware accelerated graphics programs. I wish there were!
Your idea does have a great deal of merit, though. And there is no reason why they cannot 'simulate' the h/w support in some cases.
They should have sandboxed IE and Outlook ages ago, even on the primary OS install. There are so many good security reasons to do so.
It's bizarre that anyone would ever, under any circumstances, consider a "mirror" to be a backup. Mirrors automatically replicate errors, including the human variety.
Point in time snapshots might be a sort of lazy man's backup, but even then, consider the possibility of fire or disaster, and not having some sort of second location is just plain foolhardy.
n this case, each local city grants the company its monopoly.
Are you sure? In California, I know this isn't true. The monopolies are naturally occurring, because of the cost to run infrastructure in competition with other cable vendors (who already have infrastructure paid for). There is no state monopoly for cable in California.
It's easy: the idea of the Bible God is both preposterous AND evil. The God described in the Bible seems deranged to me, an apparent and obvious invention of men with domineering minds, projecting their twisted values onto a make-believe creator entity. Supposing, somehow, that I'm wrong about the fiction of it, it's still easy: such an entity is unworthy of worship, veneration, consideration, value of any kind.
As for the idea that there exists some OTHER creator whatzit, that's less readily dismissed by derision, however it can be dismissed as having no utility. For all we know, it could be some incredibly advanced alien power that didn't like the physics of the last universe particularly well, cares not at all for worship, and there's no afterlife anyway. See what I mean?
I don't really like agnosticism. The statement "god is unknowable" per se assumes that the hypothesized god has properties that makes it unobservable either directly or indirectly. If we are to believe that about this hypothesized god whatzit, we already assert a great deal about the hypothesized thing, do we not?
Nope; wasn't that post. Strange. I have reparent highly scored posts turned on, I guess it screwed up something somehow.
Anyway, I'm with you on your psychoanalysis, although I would go a step further:
Some people have difficulty comprehending that there is no functional difference between actively believing that there is no god and not being persuaded. In each case, you basically behave the same, but some folks insist on drawing a semantic line that produces no discernible difference in behaviors. Is what it is.
This is very strange; there was some reparenting going on in the thread that showed yours as direct response to one that I cannot find now. Weird.
Somewhere in the thread a poster describes agnostics as (paraphrased) unbelievers who phrase their belief in such a way as to avoid argument. This is the correct definition, because it actually fits the profile of your average agnostic.
Now *technically*, agnosticism can be something else, such as the classical Huxleyan or what not, but basically no one outside of academic/philosophical circles cares a wit about that.
I don't care very much for agnosticism, because it's either cowardly (weasel wording: the agnostic *behaves* in every way as if god does not exist, simply will not say so) or apologetic (saying that one believes in god, but cannot prove or disprove the idea).
Obviously, you will detect that I am an atheist: I do not believe in god, and find the idea silly.
He (you?) should have spoken with the attorney, not assumed. The cost isn't high in cases like this, if the evidence seems strong. Attorney's know a strong case when they see one, and descend like sharks. Management issuing written requiring attendance to religious training? Done deal.
Slashdot Mirror
They want the T2 processors, which are selling bangup to folks who have legacy SPARC source code commitments. They will want Solaris and Containers to serve the same market: folks doing legacy recaps right now are collapsing plural SPARC servers into containers (zones or LDOMS) on T2 boxen.
They of course want Java, and related.
Sun has a major not very visible slice of telecomms server sales. It's their ATCA line. It was more successful than all the other parties thought. IBM wants that.
And Open Storage, clouded though the lawsuits may be, IBM wants that.
And some other things. Like Thumpers, which are selling quite a lot, and make awesome components for small VTLs (disk backup targets).
And last, but not least: Sun's patent portfolio. Capacitive inductance, anyone? Well, and an army of other patents, of course.
C//
Well, cheaper? Perhaps. But more profitable, yes, because they will end up with wider margins with the Open Storage appliance. Also, this will give them more leeway when it comes to out competing NetApp, so yes, cheaper, if you negotiate.
C//
Solaris itself has a per-node licensing cost which makes it less attractive in a clustering environment.
I though that Solaris was now free, "as in beer". Not so?
C//
Not quite. While these server farms in a box are fault-tolerant ...
Bah. That's just not true. The farms aren't "fault tolerant," the software run on the farms is.
C//
I really disagree with your summary. It's not a new mainframe, it's a vast simplification, rearchitecting primarily the software in actuality, to depend on a bunch of computing parts that you pretty much don't care if they fail. And that's the key: software. If you're s/w doesn't or can't work that way, you'd be insane to copy Google in any way.
C//
Anyone else have RAM modules degrade over time? I've never seen this.
Yes. My ram used to degrade over time. And then I put an APC UPS between me and the wall. Now the memory does not degrade. If you follow my meaning.
C//
Well. Your observation is almost astute. Key word: almost.
If it were merely an issue of past changes to standards, that would be one thing, but an objector is concerned with discussing little things like God's universal morality and the like. And since presumably the would-be Islamist would like us to believe that their Allah is alive now, as then, we can judge the action in the present, surely?
I hope you're right about the future. Perhaps they will give up this rather silly idea of an ever-living creator-whats-it that is the one and only moral authority.
But you know: until then, ...
C//
I'll second the other poster. Sun used the source license they did in order to specifically make themselves incompatible with the GPL. They knew this integration hurdle would occur.
More to the point, there is nothing whatsoever keeping them from dual licensing, once under the GPL and once again under the CDDL. And yet they won't.
I can't really argue with their decision. If they do it, Red Hat will take their stuff right away.
C//
I like these two posts, because they illustrate a very common schism: the difference between one kind of career planning and another: 1) I'm looking for a job to make money, lots of money, 2) I am looking for a job I will love.
The schism does not just happen in the computer sciences. It happens in medicine, too. You'd be surprised at the number of folks who invest in med school only to realize after they've paid for med school, during their residency, that they don't like doctoring one bit.
C//
A company that sells an exploitation framework doesn't have to have a very good contract. They don't have to go to court to get their money. They just tell their customers to pay and they pay. Because something bad might happen to their computers if they don't pay.
Right. A company, conducting a legitimate business, would commit a felony and risk dechartering. Mmmm, hmmm. Immunity has been around for a good 8 years now, you know.
C//
No. Patents are a legally granted monopoly.
Furthermore, the law does not prohibit a company from being a monopoly: it only prohibits certain behaviors once you are one, or certain behaviors in attempting to be one. To put it plainly, it is "monopolizing" that is illegal, not "being a monopoly".
This is all disregarding the legal grant of the monopoly, in the form of patents, that one enjoys from the government of course.
C//
There are long standing rumors, unconfirmed but highly believable, that x86 licenses are non transferable. I.e., VIA could buy Nvidia, but not vice versa.
C//
Stacking multiple drives that each have an access time of ~0 isn't going to do you any good.
Um. Throughput, mkay? Of course it will help, don't be silly.
C//
Homeopathy, acupuncture and magnet therapy? The phrase that I've heard in the past that sums this up: "'Data' is not plural for 'anecdote'".
C//
yes. How dare I remain a skeptic.
You are not merely behaving as a "skeptic"... you did indeed accuse the author of lying (and without evidence) which is a lot different than skepticism. Skepticism is not a shield for rude assaults on other people, sir.
C//
Virtually 100% all current software would work: Except, you know, anything that needs 3d hardware acceleration...
So, your saying that MS sucks too much and does not have the resources to bring their product up the match their competitors who are already on the market? I'm not buying it.
There is no virtualization product on the market that has 100% support of hardware accelerated graphics programs. I wish there were!
Your idea does have a great deal of merit, though. And there is no reason why they cannot 'simulate' the h/w support in some cases.
They should have sandboxed IE and Outlook ages ago, even on the primary OS install. There are so many good security reasons to do so.
C//
It's bizarre that anyone would ever, under any circumstances, consider a "mirror" to be a backup. Mirrors automatically replicate errors, including the human variety.
Point in time snapshots might be a sort of lazy man's backup, but even then, consider the possibility of fire or disaster, and not having some sort of second location is just plain foolhardy.
C//
If you don't like that, you should look to the terms of the Red Hat Licen$e Agreement. Micro$oft is not the only money grubber in town, eh.
Thankfully due to RMS' genius, we can escape to CentOS and others...
C//
n this case, each local city grants the company its monopoly.
Are you sure? In California, I know this isn't true. The monopolies are naturally occurring, because of the cost to run infrastructure in competition with other cable vendors (who already have infrastructure paid for). There is no state monopoly for cable in California.
C//
The public has the wrong idea? What idea does the public have?
C//
It's easy: the idea of the Bible God is both preposterous AND evil. The God described in the Bible seems deranged to me, an apparent and obvious invention of men with domineering minds, projecting their twisted values onto a make-believe creator entity. Supposing, somehow, that I'm wrong about the fiction of it, it's still easy: such an entity is unworthy of worship, veneration, consideration, value of any kind.
As for the idea that there exists some OTHER creator whatzit, that's less readily dismissed by derision, however it can be dismissed as having no utility. For all we know, it could be some incredibly advanced alien power that didn't like the physics of the last universe particularly well, cares not at all for worship, and there's no afterlife anyway. See what I mean?
C//
I don't really like agnosticism. The statement "god is unknowable" per se assumes that the hypothesized god has properties that makes it unobservable either directly or indirectly. If we are to believe that about this hypothesized god whatzit, we already assert a great deal about the hypothesized thing, do we not?
C//
Nope; wasn't that post. Strange. I have reparent highly scored posts turned on, I guess it screwed up something somehow.
Anyway, I'm with you on your psychoanalysis, although I would go a step further:
Some people have difficulty comprehending that there is no functional difference between actively believing that there is no god and not being persuaded. In each case, you basically behave the same, but some folks insist on drawing a semantic line that produces no discernible difference in behaviors. Is what it is.
C//
C//
This is very strange; there was some reparenting going on in the thread that showed yours as direct response to one that I cannot find now. Weird.
Somewhere in the thread a poster describes agnostics as (paraphrased) unbelievers who phrase their belief in such a way as to avoid argument. This is the correct definition, because it actually fits the profile of your average agnostic.
Now *technically*, agnosticism can be something else, such as the classical Huxleyan or what not, but basically no one outside of academic/philosophical circles cares a wit about that.
I don't care very much for agnosticism, because it's either cowardly (weasel wording: the agnostic *behaves* in every way as if god does not exist, simply will not say so) or apologetic (saying that one believes in god, but cannot prove or disprove the idea).
Obviously, you will detect that I am an atheist: I do not believe in god, and find the idea silly.
C//
He (you?) should have spoken with the attorney, not assumed. The cost isn't high in cases like this, if the evidence seems strong. Attorney's know a strong case when they see one, and descend like sharks. Management issuing written requiring attendance to religious training? Done deal.
C//