>So, the problem it's not that it won't work at all, it's just that *somebody* lacked the foresight to migrate all day-to-day applications to that "customised Red Hat Linux distribution" IBM uses.
You are so naive!
First, noone said it doesn't work at all.
Second, that somebody did not have the budget to migrate all day-to-day applications. Are you kidding? That would have cost them more than all Windows client licenses together.
And finally, the grandparent was right - people don't give a shit. If you've ever worked for a big company, you would have known that instead of fucking around with/etc/Xll/XF86Config options IBM employees are giving 100% to make their goddamn numbers (or you get sent home to take it easy and play with your Gentoo or whatever). And I don't think any of those folks are really banging their head against the wall and crying over the fact that they can't use Mozilla. Who cares - their first and foremost task is to do their jobs and currently it's Microsoft Windows.
R&D and some other folks use Linux because they don't use sales and other fancy apps, because they can support themselves, because they had used UNIX workstations before so they didn't have much opportunity to get addicted to Windows, and because they like it and as that guy said noone tells them not to use Linux.
In other words, nothing out of what you see in most places elsewhere.
> So... if you make Solaris compatible with Linux won't this solve the problem somewhat?
If you RTFA you'll see it already IS binary compatible. The problem is that IBM does not want to LIST it as compatible in their software support matrices so people don't sell it on Solaris and customers don't buy it on Solaris.
As virtually no effort is needed for AMD64/x86-Solaris certification of IBM's AMD64/x86/Linux apps, it is obvious that IBM does not want customers to consider Solaris on AMD64 (or x86).
IBM positions PowerPC as competitor to AMD64 , Sparc and Itanium, and Solaris on AMD64, as much as I don't like it, is going to make IBM's days pretty miserable. Therefore, making Sun incompatible is a short-sighted delay strategy and only confirms what Schwartz has been saying all this time - IBM actually uses Linux to lock up customers. If they cared they'd certified Solaris. Well, one day they'll have to certify it and start competing on level field.
>Do you also think of Mexico and Britain in those terms?
How appropriate a question (considering this is Slashdot). My original post is Troll/Flamebait and this is Funny, I guess!
Mexico and Britain: I guess you must be Irish since you are forgetting that Northern Ireland belongs to the United Kingdom?
Well sorry to disappoint you with my lack of anti-Mexican stance. I don't think anything of Mexico and the U.K.; the latter did a good job on this Hyugens project.
I've used PGP on and off over the past 10 years and I can state the following: a) I have had big troubles with it (no backup keys, forgotten password, etc.) b) I have never had any problems with stolen data or damage from disclosed personal data (if it's ever happened). Therefore, my experience is a mixed bag - it wasn't really worth it.
Now, with this supposedly moron-proof version (need to reboot to know if I'll be able to use it;-)) they might reach more people, but the whole thing with password and key management is just too much hassle.
In real life it's much easier to get in trouble by forgetting your password than by having your data stolen.
>(Rigged elections; government hostile to more countries than any other government on earth.)
I guess this is your opinion about the U.S.A. Well I won't comment on it - it will suffice to say that the U.S. has partnered with many countries (even the one-time enemy Japan) in space research and it worked well.
China, on the other hand, has _ongoing_ problems with proliferation, human rights and IPR. What sane government would cooperate on sensitive technologies with such country?
> plain invitation for the U.S. to partner with China on space.
Why would the U.S. or Europe (not to mention Japan) partner with China?
Unless they wanted to outsource manufacturing of space gear, that is.
As most of space technology is dual use, I would never consider cooperating with the Chinese until China becomes a normal country (free elections, non-hostile government, etc.)
>But how this product is being compared to a database is odd. A database provides persistence.
I guess the idea is that you can run SQL queries on those in-memory tables (as opposed to searching memory in some non-standard way).
>This sounds like it needs a constant stream of data.
It doesn't _need_ a constant stream of data - data streams are there anwyay. It replaces disk-based databases which are aparently useless for real-time decision support systems that must process huge constant streams of data. Traditional databases write stuff to disk files (or its transaction logs) and read it for analysis later. This new thing eliminates writes because there is no need for persistency - they just need to make decisions based on current data which is already there. SQL language support is the key, I would say.
> I don't quite see what the speed of interconnects or bus-locking has to do with "Linux hype", Linux in general, or any other OS.
It doesn't - that's the reason I was pissed off by the fact that suddenly "Linux scales" (while other OS, presumably, perform like shit on the same hardware).
And the article was misleading in the sense that it indicated how Linux scales well on 64-way SMP systems (perhaps it indeed does but in this case the box was partitioned). Bunch of bullshit.
> Open source and open protocols are an excellent way
Actually it's not important that those technologies are open source as long as they use open protocols (because you can use any kind of technology - both closed and open - to communicate using open standards). If the closed source technology is better (cheaper, etc.) it will win and there's nothing wrong with that. This is one of those things where Sun's Schwartz is absolutely right.
> If the government steps in and starts regulating everything like they did with POTS, then we'll end up with a few huge monopolies that offer horrible service and horrible prices again.
Dude, do you live in Burundi?
POTS is one of best publicly controlled services ever - I don't ever remember that my phone line didn't work and that quality of transmission was less than perfect. The service has been perfect and prices are quite OK.
The fucking news and the fucking article itself are misleading.
> A 64-way system may or may not be useful. It depends on the speed of the interconnects, and the way it handles bus locking.
Of course it IS useful. It is great for database consolidation (especially for SQL Server which practically doesn't scale horizontally), for example, as upgrades can be done in minutes and the whole goddamned thing is as stable as an Intel box can be. And in case you missed what the FA said, they did NOT run an OS on 64 CPUs (that's why it's bullshit and misleading) but they partitioned those 64 CPU is 16 four-way servers. But hey - this is Slashdot and any Linux related hype is welcome....
> So, sure, there are people who could use such a system, but I cannot imagine many of them are in the market.
Sorry, pal, but HP sold $1b of such boxes in 2004. Manufacturing, telcos, utilities and many other users need "boxen" like these. I think they're slightly more suitable for Windows because of the way it can "add" (allocate, actually) processors to Exchange and SQL Server systems.
> a little old - there are sections of the IPv4 code which haven't been touched in 2-3 years.
Personally I would barely _consider_ using* anything that's newer than 2-3 years. Shiiit, I bet they've barely debugged it properly for production use!
* Talking about servers here (I haven't considered using Linux on desktop yet..)
> This means that, beyond a certain point, it's impossible to maintain... If OSDL employed 10% of the entire population of America, they could probably manage it within a year and keep in step with all the patches that are being submitted.
I entertained myself with such idea a while ago; I think there's my comment somewhere on this site where I mentioned "Slave to The Kernel" as a SF scenario where the humanity becomes enslaved by the huge (random huge number here) Linux OS (or kernel if you will). It's been a while since I read about long-term computing trends but the whole concept of the operating system seems really outdated. I mean, just imagine how little OS have changed since first UNIX. We still have to work with (edit and such) configuration files - how backward is that! I will be surprised if OS as we know them survive beyond 2020.
>One of the problems with Linux is that as there is no monolithic entity strategizing about this stuff on a macro level, just a bunch of individual entities following their own locally optimal development plans, you may not end up with a globally optimal strategy for OSS adoption or for the community as a whole.
But that's also its main advantage - imagine one monolithic entity that is.. NUTS! A bunch of monkeys hammering away on terminals... It's more likely something good's gonna come out.
>Which of these will win out remains to be seen.
At the same time, things like these make me care less and less - we've got Mozilla, Gaim, soon Evolution, on Windows - perhaps only people like Stallman & Co. (and people who make lots of money using Linux) will keep high open source spirits...
>It's discouraging me of running small-scale Adwords campaigns, honestly.
Well, then don't run it!
That's what I'm gonna do. Kind of... Namely, you still CAN run your campaign, just don't use non-Google sites to show your ads. Show your ads only alongside Google search results.
In my campaign I get most clicks from Google domains anyway so turning off display on AdSense sites won't be a big deal. However, it may hurt Google a bit (if everyone gets a small proportion of clicks from AdSense sites and 30% of everyones stop showing ads on AdSense sites... tens of thousands of cancellations will cost Google a pretty penny!)
I remember Google dance used to take place every three months which indeed is too long an interval between syncs. And the whole sync procedure is a bit messed up (search for "google dance" - you'll see how you can get different search results depending on which Google data center you query).
As to the speed of synchronization - I don't agree. I think they need fiber to _eliminate_ need to synchronize. They want to work with a single (apart from online backup) copy of their data.
That childish crap is totally useless to their cause.
No sane person denies that P2P is useful for certain purposes. The problem is about the bad side of P2P which is that it is unrestricted playground for IPR violations.
They would be better off by a) creating PR campaign against P2P abuse (quite useless as well, but still...) b) working with interested parties to include anti-piracy code in P2P clients (of course, they don't want to do that)
So, the effect of their action will be naught - those who use P2P will continue using it, those who don't will not use it.
Re:Foxy Lady...
on
Google Tidbits
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
>I wonder how this will effect customer support, and patching/upgrading?
And I wonder how stupid you must be to post such question here when you have a PeopleSoft support contract and Oracle's web site to go to, you stupid sonnova bitch.
I don't even think that "major project" is any of your concern. You're just trying to FUD here....
Redundancy - of course it's zero (single everything except phones which are useless redundant if you've got no connection). Which means double the cost (HA software and network equipment) to failover the services...
To me it seems okay for a small-to-mid size office or niche ISP (village/island/etc.).
Slashdot Mirror
>So, the problem it's not that it won't work at all, it's just that *somebody* lacked the foresight to migrate all day-to-day applications to that "customised Red Hat Linux distribution" IBM uses.
/etc/Xll/XF86Config options IBM employees are giving 100% to make their goddamn numbers (or you get sent home to take it easy and play with your Gentoo or whatever).
You are so naive!
First, noone said it doesn't work at all.
Second, that somebody did not have the budget to migrate all day-to-day applications.
Are you kidding? That would have cost them more than all Windows client licenses together.
And finally, the grandparent was right - people don't give a shit.
If you've ever worked for a big company, you would have known that instead of fucking around with
And I don't think any of those folks are really banging their head against the wall and crying over the fact that they can't use Mozilla. Who cares - their first and foremost task is to do their jobs and currently it's Microsoft Windows.
R&D and some other folks use Linux because they don't use sales and other fancy apps, because they can support themselves, because they had used UNIX workstations before so they didn't have much opportunity to get addicted to Windows, and because they like it and as that guy said noone tells them not to use Linux.
In other words, nothing out of what you see in most places elsewhere.
?
r l.(Advan ces.in.Tesla...ies].mpg 793.15 MBr p_Te sla_Front-d'...ono).mp3 12.61 MB
Kad:
Geheimtechnologie.HAARP.-.Löcher.am.Himme
haarp - advanced tesla technology.rm 37.21 MB
(ebook - German) - Nikola_Tesla__Heerd, Ulrich - Das Haarp Projekt.pdf 869.16 KB
[Docu] HAARP and Advances in Tesla Technology.wmv 54.54 MB
Haarp-Projekt_nach-Nicola-Tesla.pdf 448.26 KB
HISTOIRES_POSSIBLES_-_La_guerre_propre_._(Haa
eBook - German - Heerd, Ulrich - Das Haarp Projekt, Nikola Tes...ffen.rar 527.59 KB
Geheimtechnologie HAARP - Löcher am Himmerl (Advances in Tesla....08].wmv 36.24 MB
Heerd, Ulrich - Das Haarp Projekt, Nikola Tesla, Modernste Waffen.pdf 850.84 KB
(ebook - German) - Nikola_Tesla__Das HAARP Project.pdf 23.81 KB
Haarp-The Unholy Teslan Lodge.pdf 10.31 KB
> So... if you make Solaris compatible with Linux won't this solve the problem somewhat?
If you RTFA you'll see it already IS binary compatible. The problem is that IBM does not want to LIST it as compatible in their software support matrices so people don't sell it on Solaris and customers don't buy it on Solaris.
As virtually no effort is needed for AMD64/x86-Solaris certification of IBM's AMD64/x86/Linux apps, it is obvious that IBM does not want customers to consider Solaris on AMD64 (or x86).
IBM positions PowerPC as competitor to AMD64 , Sparc and Itanium, and Solaris on AMD64, as much as I don't like it, is going to make IBM's days pretty miserable. Therefore, making Sun incompatible is a short-sighted delay strategy and only confirms what Schwartz has been saying all this time - IBM actually uses Linux to lock up customers. If they cared they'd certified Solaris.
Well, one day they'll have to certify it and start competing on level field.
>Do you also think of Mexico and Britain in those terms?
How appropriate a question (considering this is Slashdot). My original post is Troll/Flamebait and this is Funny, I guess!
Mexico and Britain: I guess you must be Irish since you are forgetting that Northern Ireland belongs to the United Kingdom?
Well sorry to disappoint you with my lack of anti-Mexican stance. I don't think anything of Mexico and the U.K.; the latter did a good job on this Hyugens project.
I've used PGP on and off over the past 10 years and I can state the following:
;-)) they might reach more people, but the whole thing with password and key management is just too much hassle.
a) I have had big troubles with it (no backup keys, forgotten password, etc.)
b) I have never had any problems with stolen data or damage from disclosed personal data (if it's ever happened).
Therefore, my experience is a mixed bag - it wasn't really worth it.
Now, with this supposedly moron-proof version (need to reboot to know if I'll be able to use it
In real life it's much easier to get in trouble by forgetting your password than by having your data stolen.
Interesting stuff can be found on networks - usually HAARP and Tesla, these two words, produce good results.
If cell phones are dubious, this shit is scary - it must be impossible to keep out of electromagnetic radiation's reach.
> Let me guess - you're not American!
You're right.
>(Rigged elections; government hostile to more countries than any other government on earth.)
I guess this is your opinion about the U.S.A. Well I won't comment on it - it will suffice to say that the U.S. has partnered with many countries (even the one-time enemy Japan) in space research and it worked well.
China, on the other hand, has _ongoing_ problems with proliferation, human rights and IPR. What sane government would cooperate on sensitive technologies with such country?
> Feng shui is for choosing the launch site. For choosing the launch date, other metaphysics tools would be used.
It is called the (Chinese version of) lunar calendar (nong li).
In it for every day there's a list of dos and don'ts.
> plain invitation for the U.S. to partner with China on space.
Why would the U.S. or Europe (not to mention Japan) partner with China?
Unless they wanted to outsource manufacturing of space gear, that is.
As most of space technology is dual use, I would never consider cooperating with the Chinese until China becomes a normal country (free elections, non-hostile government, etc.)
How is the parent post insightful?
It's the right way - mandate use of open formats and let the better software win!
Since open source is better, it will win easily (since it has lower cost of ownership) - why do you consider this to be bad?
>But how this product is being compared to a database is odd. A database provides persistence.
I guess the idea is that you can run SQL queries on those in-memory tables (as opposed to searching memory in some non-standard way).
>This sounds like it needs a constant stream of data.
It doesn't _need_ a constant stream of data - data streams are there anwyay.
It replaces disk-based databases which are aparently useless for real-time decision support systems that must process huge constant streams of data.
Traditional databases write stuff to disk files (or its transaction logs) and read it for analysis later. This new thing eliminates writes because there is no need for persistency - they just need to make decisions based on current data which is already there. SQL language support is the key, I would say.
> I don't quite see what the speed of interconnects or bus-locking has to do with "Linux hype", Linux in general, or any other OS.
It doesn't - that's the reason I was pissed off by the fact that suddenly "Linux scales" (while other OS, presumably, perform like shit on the same hardware).
And the article was misleading in the sense that it indicated how Linux scales well on 64-way SMP systems (perhaps it indeed does but in this case the box was partitioned). Bunch of bullshit.
> Open source and open protocols are an excellent way
Actually it's not important that those technologies are open source as long as they use open protocols (because you can use any kind of technology - both closed and open - to communicate using open standards). If the closed source technology is better (cheaper, etc.) it will win and there's nothing wrong with that.
This is one of those things where Sun's Schwartz is absolutely right.
> If the government steps in and starts regulating everything like they did with POTS, then we'll end up with a few huge monopolies that offer horrible service and horrible prices again.
Dude, do you live in Burundi?
POTS is one of best publicly controlled services ever - I don't ever remember that my phone line didn't work and that quality of transmission was less than perfect. The service has been perfect and prices are quite OK.
The fucking news and the fucking article itself are misleading.
> A 64-way system may or may not be useful. It depends on the speed of the interconnects, and the way it handles bus locking.
Of course it IS useful. It is great for database consolidation (especially for SQL Server which practically doesn't scale horizontally), for example, as upgrades can be done in minutes and the whole goddamned thing is as stable as an Intel box can be.
And in case you missed what the FA said, they did NOT run an OS on 64 CPUs (that's why it's bullshit and misleading) but they partitioned those 64 CPU is 16 four-way servers. But hey - this is Slashdot and any Linux related hype is welcome....
> So, sure, there are people who could use such a system, but I cannot imagine many of them are in the market.
Sorry, pal, but HP sold $1b of such boxes in 2004. Manufacturing, telcos, utilities and many other users need "boxen" like these. I think they're slightly more suitable for Windows because of the way it can "add" (allocate, actually) processors to Exchange and SQL Server systems.
> a little old - there are sections of the IPv4 code which haven't been touched in 2-3 years.
Personally I would barely _consider_ using* anything that's newer than 2-3 years.
Shiiit, I bet they've barely debugged it properly for production use!
* Talking about servers here (I haven't considered using Linux on desktop yet..)
> This means that, beyond a certain point, it's impossible to maintain... If OSDL employed 10% of the entire population of America, they could probably manage it within a year and keep in step with all the patches that are being submitted.
I entertained myself with such idea a while ago; I think there's my comment somewhere on this site where I mentioned "Slave to The Kernel" as a SF scenario where the humanity becomes enslaved by the huge (random huge number here) Linux OS (or kernel if you will).
It's been a while since I read about long-term computing trends but the whole concept of the operating system seems really outdated. I mean, just imagine how little OS have changed since first UNIX. We still have to work with (edit and such) configuration files - how backward is that!
I will be surprised if OS as we know them survive beyond 2020.
>One of the problems with Linux is that as there is no monolithic entity strategizing about this stuff on a macro level, just a bunch of individual entities following their own locally optimal development plans, you may not end up with a globally optimal strategy for OSS adoption or for the community as a whole.
.. NUTS!
But that's also its main advantage - imagine one monolithic entity that is
A bunch of monkeys hammering away on terminals... It's more likely something good's gonna come out.
>Which of these will win out remains to be seen.
At the same time, things like these make me care less and less - we've got Mozilla, Gaim, soon Evolution, on Windows - perhaps only people like Stallman & Co. (and people who make lots of money using Linux) will keep high open source spirits...
>It's discouraging me of running small-scale Adwords campaigns, honestly.
Well, then don't run it!
That's what I'm gonna do. Kind of... Namely, you still CAN run your campaign, just don't use non-Google sites to show your ads. Show your ads only alongside Google search results.
In my campaign I get most clicks from Google domains anyway so turning off display on AdSense sites won't be a big deal. However, it may hurt Google a bit (if everyone gets a small proportion of clicks from AdSense sites and 30% of everyones stop showing ads on AdSense sites... tens of thousands of cancellations will cost Google a pretty penny!)
I remember Google dance used to take place every three months which indeed is too long an interval between syncs. And the whole sync procedure is a bit messed up (search for "google dance" - you'll see how you can get different search results depending on which Google data center you query).
As to the speed of synchronization - I don't agree. I think they need fiber to _eliminate_ need to synchronize. They want to work with a single (apart from online backup) copy of their data.
That childish crap is totally useless to their cause.
No sane person denies that P2P is useful for certain purposes. The problem is about the bad side of P2P which is that it is unrestricted playground for IPR violations.
They would be better off by
a) creating PR campaign against P2P abuse (quite useless as well, but still...)
b) working with interested parties to include anti-piracy code in P2P clients (of course, they don't want to do that)
So, the effect of their action will be naught - those who use P2P will continue using it, those who don't will not use it.
> I'd like an evening with Marissa Mayer
And I'd like a nite with Carmen Electra.
>I wonder how this will effect customer support, and patching/upgrading?
And I wonder how stupid you must be to post such question here when you have a PeopleSoft support contract and Oracle's web site to go to, you stupid sonnova bitch.
I don't even think that "major project" is any of your concern. You're just trying to FUD here....
>>As my first recommendation, MP3 support should be installed by default.
>That *EXACTLY* the reason I left Redhat.
That *EXACTLY* the reason I have never left Windows.
Joe PHB: "what's the FUD I'm hearing about?"
Goe PHP: "it's FUDORA!"
how hard was what?
you don't call that a backup command, do you?
for all practical purposes that is - useless.
He couldn't have been serious...
Redundancy - of course it's zero (single everything except phones which are useless redundant if you've got no connection). Which means double the cost (HA software and network equipment) to failover the services...
To me it seems okay for a small-to-mid size office or niche ISP (village/island/etc.).