Excactly, all those emacs fans, should use visual editors:>
apart from that, do *you* have any other good suggestions? It's a little stupid to stop using something that works perfectly, is free, is still rapidly evolving and you know very well, for something else that you don't know, costs more, is not free, and is not as good -- just for the sake of "progress".
as for the worshipping thing, you just get that, when something is so usefull ( ohmyvi, the mails got mixed up, vihelpus)
it's just hard to tell if $3500 is going to get me more than a similarly equiped Intel/AMD system
No way $3.5k can get you a similar Intel/AMD system...
People don't understand how low the price is for a 4-way system: IBM built the power processor with excactly this in mind. With intel, you need around $3k for a dual processor system (which is comparable with a 2-way 970 -- see mac g5's ) but the price goes over $10k for 4-way machines.
These machines will absolutely be the best thing $3.5k can buy... ( 2 like them will be the best thing $7k can buy etc:)) )
IBM has a *huge* technological advantage at this point and other manufacturers will have a really really hard time in the low-end server/workstation market for the years to come.
you can get a 2-way system with great graphic cards and combo drives etc under $3k from apple...
the difference between 1-way 1.8ghz and 2-way 2ghz is $600 with the same configuration, again from apple. forget that it's a better processor (1.8-->2ghz), the difference should be say 300 (?) for the actuall second processor, and $300 for the dual mobo.
** REMEMBER the article: "IBM will stress better performance than Xeon-based servers, 32- and 64-bit compatibility with no migration costs or penalties, and linear price scaling from two-way to four-way systems"
linear, that is the 4-way mobo will cost something like $300-$600 more and 2 more 970's something like $600 more. (maybe the motherboard cost more, and the processors less, maybe the opossite -- who cares?)
now take out the great graphic card, the design, the superdrive, use the 1.6ghz models etc. doesn't that sum up around $3,5k?
There is a much more powerful OS available for that processor than Linux ppc
i assume you are reffering to AIX:> so , i would like to point out that linux is a rational choice as there is much more software for it and it evolves much faster... It is the "natural successor" to AIX, so it's only natural to use it. AIX might still have some strong points vs. linux but not on that level of hardware.
You can't find today a quad processor system under $5k anywhere, not even for 32bit machines:)
You also can't build any such system at this price, the above post is just clueless.
In reality to buy a fully equipped quad-xeon you would need something like $15k -- for a base version around 10k -- check anywhere. You can buy two ibm's for this price, plus it will be propably faster, and 64bit.
You are of course wrong, it's not just the motherboard that is much more expensive than that, it's also the actual processors, which will cost a hell of a lot more for a 4-way system (simple xeons won't work)
there is absolutely no way you can do it under $8K -- more than twice the price of IBM's-- and you *will* be slower and 32-bit.
to sum up:
>$3500 for a quad server isn't anything close to "cheap".
You have never *EVER* seen prices for 4-way systems, you don't understand why this is huge news.
well, you better believe it, as the article actually say:
"The ULE models, which will run Linux and IBM's AIX OS, will ship in 2U two-way and 4U four-way configurations. A base configuration of the 4U is expected to cost less than $3,500, sources said."
And it is actually believable as it also points out:
"IBM will stress better performance than Xeon-based servers, 32- and 64-bit compatibility with no migration costs or penalties, and linear price scaling from two-way to four-way systems."
This is a key feature of power4's design: the ability to have low cost multi processor systems (apple ships 1-way 1.8Ghz at $2.4K and 2-way 970s at $3k -- same configuration)
>Of course, if they ever DID come out with a 4-way >PPC system for $3500, you'd better believe it would increase >the hell out of how many people run Linux on PPC. >I'd sure as heck buy one!!
Come on moderator. Explain why I'm wrong instead of slapping me with a mod point
i would guess that you are punished for talking about things you really don't know.
You probably pay 3-6 times what you'd normally pay for NICS and GFX cards. Apple does this all the time.
But you only need one nic and one card, and they will propably come bundled with the machine:>
2: SMP's nice. So is PPC. But how much will you actually save if you went to this versus a new 1 or 2 Athlon setup?
If you count the administrative costs i could buy not one but two 4way 970's, costing more than 8k, versus 4 beowulf athlons costing below 2k and still break even in a month. And i would have an identical machine for backup.
3...I can go to WalMart, or ripoff computer store and buy parts I need now... Not a good idea.
Go to walmart to buy parts for your server? Now that's a good idea...
4: In my statement about Beowulf beating this, What's the cost/performance of 4 Athlon 1.5GHz with 1 gig of ram each (on 100MBps) versus one of these? I bet the name of "server" raises that cost atleast 1000$.
A 4way intel machine will cost far more though. More than $10K. These machines *will* be a huge success whether intel or not. You cannot address everything with beowulf you know...
Come on, a 4u 64bit under $5k? This is the dream of every fortran programmer i know, it is the perfect terminal server, the perfect development machine etc. Oh, and no one can come to you with a "why don't we use win2k3 here?" line.
What about power consumption issues?
huh? what about them? 970's need less power than most mobile chips. Where did you see that g5 "goble power faster than athlons"??? this is most definetely wrong.
Maybe there is nothing *wrong* with IE, but he is right in his comment that it is not the *best* browser out there. Both mozilla and opera are superior at this point, i don't think there is any argument against that. Even konqueror is getting close -- and it's a far superior file manager!... IE is getting old and there is no sign that its development is going anywhere.
It kinda reminds me of wordpad-- it's good enough for most people, and if you need something better buy office. I wonder if this is where they are getting at...
allow the side with the most expensive lawyers to use them as a bludgeon... I think a much better idea would be to have the loser pay the winner an award equal to THEIR OWN legal fees.
The payment should be (and propably is) calculated by a *fixed* salary. (if you want to pay more go ahead...)
I agree that there are a lot of people that pirate software. I cannot agree (or disagree) whether the numbers are accurate, I am simply pointing out that this method (counting pc sales vs. windows sales) is flawed for many reasons. I don't really know if this is what they are doing though.
If Intel and AMD combined sell 100 million CPUs this year and Microsoft only sells 60 million seats of Windows, then 40 million computers are using pirated OS
There *might* be ways to guess the actuall numbers, but this definetely cannot be it.. I can by a P-4 this year and load it with my 5 year old win98 cd or my 1 month old redhat cd. I guess i would be a pirate if i *didn't* uninstall win98 from my old pc, but somehow i don't think that this is what they are talking about. (or maybe it is, then the whole thing is just funny)
for many reasons, the spirit of the GPL is that the code is somehow protected from "abuse". A company cannot just grab linux kernel, fix some bugs let's say, and sell it (or give it away) as a superior product. The changes have to be available for the public, and the main kernel tree. BSD kernel is the other example, the code is good, so good that many many companies have used it, but developers got nothing in return (ok, maybe some gonverment funding). So it never managed to rise and has never been able to challenge commercial solutions the way linux has.
But since linux is constantly being given away at below cost come again?
"It costs $0 retail and cost gazillions to develop" huh?
You are not making any sense, it is free software. And yes it costs $0. (i really don't understand why any real person would have a problem with that, maybe you forgot to click the "post anonymously"?)
So how is Linux not dumping? You kinda sid it yourself, it is *constantly* given away for free. While MS office, for example, is *NOT*.
only (surprise!) with the latest microsoft licensing, TCO includes from a monthly deposit on their account. They did manage to lower the initial costs of course:>
yeah they're neat, but after the newness wears off then you'll see see what? that using one desktop is better ?? that pressing ctrl-c,ctrl-v all the time is actually better?
Use Linux for a year or two then go back and try Windows. I don't know anyone who has done that, really, do you?
And don't get me started on the slowness of KDE Oh, come on now, please get started, but you won't, you are an AC, what am i saying..
Actually, I would consider this proof that Microsoft is *not* a monopoly.
Ok, it is proven then.
Seriously, overall linux is doing great, but the MS monopoly is still there for the people who are actually trying to make a *living* from linux. Linux is mature, and it's ready and great blah blah, but MS is *still* a monopoly, and it *can* use anti-competitive tactics (again).
Slashdot Mirror
considering this server is squarely in the market / price range of the Opterons
it's not !! it's actually very very much cheaper.
Excactly, all those emacs fans, should use visual editors :>
apart from that, do *you* have any other good suggestions?
It's a little stupid to stop using something that works perfectly, is free, is still rapidly evolving and you know very well, for something else that you don't know, costs more, is not free, and is not as good -- just for the sake of "progress".
as for the worshipping thing, you just get that, when something is so usefull ( ohmyvi, the mails got mixed up, vihelpus)
it's just hard to tell if $3500 is going to get me more than a similarly equiped Intel/AMD system
:)) )
No way $3.5k can get you a similar Intel/AMD system...
People don't understand how low the price is for a 4-way system: IBM built the power processor with excactly this in mind.
With intel, you need around $3k for a dual processor system (which is comparable with a 2-way 970 -- see mac g5's ) but the price goes over $10k for 4-way machines.
These machines will absolutely be the best thing $3.5k can buy... ( 2 like them will be the best thing $7k can buy etc
IBM has a *huge* technological advantage at this point and other manufacturers will have a really really hard time in the low-end server/workstation market for the years to come.
why not? let's do the math:
you can get a 2-way system with great graphic cards and combo drives etc under $3k from apple...
the difference between 1-way 1.8ghz and 2-way 2ghz is $600 with the same configuration, again from apple. forget that it's a better processor (1.8-->2ghz), the difference should be say 300 (?) for the actuall second processor, and $300 for the dual mobo.
** REMEMBER the article: "IBM will stress better
performance than Xeon-based servers, 32- and
64-bit compatibility with no migration costs or
penalties, and linear price scaling from
two-way to four-way systems"
linear, that is the 4-way mobo will cost something like $300-$600 more and 2 more 970's something like $600 more. (maybe the motherboard cost more, and the processors less, maybe the opossite -- who cares?)
now take out the great graphic card, the design, the superdrive, use the 1.6ghz models etc. doesn't that sum up around $3,5k?
There is a much more powerful OS available for that processor than Linux ppc
:> so , i would like to point out that linux is a rational choice as there is much more software for it and it evolves much faster... It is the "natural successor" to AIX, so it's only natural to use it. AIX might still have some strong points vs. linux but not on that level of hardware.
i assume you are reffering to AIX
You can't find today a quad processor system under $5k anywhere, not even for 32bit machines:)
You also can't build any such system at this price, the above post is just clueless.
In reality to buy a fully equipped quad-xeon you would need something like $15k -- for a base version around 10k -- check anywhere. You can buy two ibm's for this price, plus it will be propably faster, and 64bit.
You are of course wrong, it's not just the motherboard that is much more expensive than that, it's also the actual processors, which will cost a hell of a lot more for a 4-way system (simple xeons won't work)
there is absolutely no way you can do it under $8K -- more than twice the price of IBM's-- and you *will* be slower and 32-bit.
to sum up:
>$3500 for a quad server isn't anything close to "cheap".
You have never *EVER* seen prices for 4-way systems, you don't understand why this is huge news.
Oh, it was the man pages of AIX that got me up and running in UNIX in a few days. I just LOVED them, they had examples for anything...
:))
If only ibm in it's linux-friendliness wrote those masterpieces for gnu tools
well, you better believe it, as the article actually say:
...
"The ULE models, which will run Linux and IBM's AIX OS, will ship in 2U two-way and 4U four-way configurations. A base configuration of the 4U is expected to cost less than $3,500, sources said."
And it is actually believable as it also points out:
"IBM will stress better performance than Xeon-based servers, 32- and 64-bit compatibility with no migration costs or penalties, and linear price scaling from two-way to four-way systems."
This is a key feature of power4's design: the ability to have low cost multi processor systems (apple ships 1-way 1.8Ghz at $2.4K and 2-way 970s at $3k -- same configuration)
>Of course, if they ever DID come out with a 4-way
>PPC system for $3500, you'd better believe it would increase
>the hell out of how many people run Linux on PPC.
>I'd sure as heck buy one!!
tell me about it
Come on moderator. Explain why I'm wrong instead of slapping me with a mod point
:>
...
i would guess that you are punished for talking about things you really don't know.
You probably pay 3-6 times what you'd normally pay for NICS and GFX cards. Apple does this all the time.
But you only need one nic and one card, and they will propably come bundled with the machine
2: SMP's nice. So is PPC. But how much will you actually save if you went to this versus a new 1 or 2 Athlon setup?
If you count the administrative costs i could buy not one but two 4way 970's, costing more than 8k, versus 4 beowulf athlons costing below 2k and still break even in a month. And i would have an identical machine for backup.
3...I can go to WalMart, or ripoff computer store and buy parts I need now... Not a good idea.
Go to walmart to buy parts for your server? Now that's a good idea
4: In my statement about Beowulf beating this, What's the cost/performance of 4 Athlon 1.5GHz with 1 gig of ram each (on 100MBps) versus one of these? I bet the name of "server" raises that cost atleast 1000$.
A 4way intel machine will cost far more though. More than $10K. These machines *will* be a huge success whether intel or not. You cannot address everything with beowulf you know...
Come on, a 4u 64bit under $5k? This is the dream of every fortran programmer i know, it is the perfect terminal server, the perfect development machine etc. Oh, and no one can come to you with a "why don't we use win2k3 here?" line.
What about power consumption issues?
huh? what about them? 970's need less power than most mobile chips. Where did you see that g5 "goble power faster than athlons"??? this is most definetely wrong.
especially if they do such works for hire
They don't *have* to do it... It is very logical to expect anything that is paid with tax money, to be given back to the taxpayers.
Why would a company that actually *writes* the problematic software sell (or even bundle) an antivirus? Can't they just correct the problem ???
I don't believe they are ever going to bundle an antivirus with windows...
And MSIE is not the "worst browser out there today" by any means
It's not the best either.
Where MS has truly bad products - SQL Server, for example - competition is healthy.
SQL server is not bundled with windows. If is was, competition would have problems.
Maybe there is nothing *wrong* with IE, but he is right in his comment that it is not the *best* browser out there. Both mozilla and opera are superior at this point, i don't think there is any argument against that. Even konqueror is getting close -- and it's a far superior file manager! ... IE is getting old and there is no sign that its development is going anywhere.
It kinda reminds me of wordpad-- it's good enough for most people, and if you need something better buy office. I wonder if this is where they are getting at...
The policy editor ??????
:)))
So instead of "let the user choose not to run MS mess." you have to "deny the user the right to run MS mess."
so thats how they are thinking, i never noticed it before, this really explains a lot
allow the side with the most expensive lawyers to use them as a bludgeon ...
...)
I think a much better idea would be to have the loser pay the winner an award equal to THEIR OWN legal fees.
The payment should be (and propably is) calculated by a *fixed* salary. (if you want to pay more go ahead
I agree that there are a lot of people that pirate software. I cannot agree (or disagree) whether the numbers are accurate, I am simply pointing out that this method (counting pc sales vs. windows sales) is flawed for many reasons. I don't really know if this is what they are doing though.
If Intel and AMD combined sell 100 million CPUs this year and Microsoft only sells 60 million seats of Windows, then 40 million computers are using pirated OS
There *might* be ways to guess the actuall numbers, but this definetely cannot be it.. I can by a P-4 this year and load it with my 5 year old win98 cd or my 1 month old redhat cd. I guess i would be a pirate if i *didn't* uninstall win98 from my old pc, but somehow i don't think that this is what they are talking about. (or maybe it is, then the whole thing is just funny)
for many reasons, the spirit of the GPL is that the code is somehow protected from "abuse". A company cannot just grab linux kernel, fix some bugs let's say, and sell it (or give it away) as a superior product. The changes have to be available for the public, and the main kernel tree.
BSD kernel is the other example, the code is good, so good that many many companies have used it, but developers got nothing in return (ok, maybe some gonverment funding). So it never managed to rise and has never been able to challenge commercial solutions the way linux has.
But since linux is constantly being given away at below cost
come again?
"It costs $0 retail and cost gazillions to develop"
huh?
You are not making any sense, it is free software.
And yes it costs $0.
(i really don't understand why any real person would have a problem with that, maybe you forgot to click the "post anonymously"?)
So how is Linux not dumping?
You kinda sid it yourself, it is *constantly* given away for free. While MS office, for example, is *NOT*.
only (surprise!) with the latest microsoft licensing, TCO includes from a monthly deposit on their account. They did manage to lower the initial costs of course :>
yeah they're neat, but after the newness wears off then you'll see
..
see what? that using one desktop is better ?? that pressing ctrl-c,ctrl-v all the time is actually better?
Use Linux for a year or two then go back and try Windows.
I don't know anyone who has done that, really, do you?
And don't get me started on the slowness of KDE
Oh, come on now, please get started, but you won't, you are an AC, what am i saying
He was posting as an "Anonymous Coward", why on earth would he expect to get modded up ????
Actually, I would consider this proof that Microsoft is *not* a monopoly.
Ok, it is proven then.
Seriously, overall linux is doing great, but the MS monopoly is still there for the people who are actually trying to make a *living* from linux. Linux is mature, and it's ready and great blah blah, but MS is *still* a monopoly, and it *can* use anti-competitive tactics (again).
I have to argue that if linux never existed BSD wouldn't be a problem for them...
Obviously *something* would have emerged but it would have to be gpl to make a difference.