But, hey, if you want to treat the rules of formal debate as a method for ignoring points of view that don't mesh with your own, that's your choice. We have limited lifetimes, and promoting style over substance can be a effective coping mechanism.
I'll say it again: Cuccinelli is a political opportunist.
Hey Jeremy... a few things: first, my real objection is that the "ad hominem" term is largely being used incorrectly... and while I am at it, is not always a fallacy. Someone said it wasn't fallacious here and I am just saying it is a false argument in this case. If Ken Cuccinelli's character says something about the point in hand then that link should be explicitly made.
Second: please don't include someone else's argument in a quote that kind of looks like it came from me. eh, this is minor. The slippery slope comment is very true.
Third: I wasn't ignoring anyone's point of view because of formalities of debate. I just don't like sloppy thinking in the guise of critical analysis. I didn't say anything about the merits of anyones POV.
Having those packets of crackers seems to be (IMO) an American thing. So why should the Chinese have had them? Unless of course you think that/. is the centre of the universe and nothing exists outside US culture.
It's fascinating to think that in just about four years the first man-made object will leave our solar system. And to think that only a little over 100 years ago we were still trying to get ourselves airborne. We've come a long way. I wish I knew what we'd be doing 100 years from today.
er... picking through radioctive rubble and looking for a scrap to eat?... avoiding Triffids?
Well doggie. The ad hominem is still a false argument in this case, although it is happy making to dance the puppet about and make fun of it.;->
Who Mr. Cuccinelli is and what he has pushed as an agenda before does not say anything about the validity of the case in point. It is more that this is another example of his political direction and it appears that he is consistent in his beliefs.
So.... the fact that he is consistently conservative does not argue for or against the validity of the case before the court.
If you are wagering on the outcome of a case that he presents to the courts then there may be a correlation with the other cases that would be helpful to set the odds.
Wow. Touchy touchy. I didn't put AC down, or insult AC; I just asked why not login? Easy question. A good answer would be "too lazy", and I would certainly think that was valid. Another great answer would be "I just like posting AC". Of course, frothing and ranting is always an excellent response that is readily accepted for entertainment value if nothing else.
Logging in doesn't prove anything. It's just a community thing and helps to put into context what you say by indexing other comments.
No need for home address, real name, financials etc unless you feel a desire to provide those details.
You certainly have something to say... with all respect, why don't you login? I post AC sometimes when it's best for me but I find its best to attach an account to my statements. IMHO.
Obviously they have their heads stuck in the sand. Data center footprint issues alone make it cost friendly to move off of Sun. Given how much now runs on IBM or Intel chips and given the maturity of Linux, there really is no reason not to and lots of positives for getting rid of Sun.
I will say this though, IMHO, Solaris is still a far better industrial strength o/s than Linux. This is an opinion based on years of work with both. Solaris' i/o handling, network stack, scheduler, stability, and transparency of upgrades are superior to Linux across the board.
But Linux works, and it works well. And there are no problems with Linux that cannot be dealt with one way or another. And there's no bullshit. And I can run it on the best h/w. Sun h/w sucks. I know this is a troll statement but I have worked with Sun h/w for 20 yrs and the current offerings are outdated, relatively poor performing and power hungry. And heavy. And ugly.
Virtualization choices and functionality are better with Linux, and that is the number one issue today.
The only place I would use Sun h/w today is for either web or dns services. The T servers running Solaris really kick butt for high network connectivity, highly parallel internet services.
That's quite a bizarre claim. I've looked at hundreds of Java dumps from hundreds of different customers and the vast majority are doing multithreading on a massive scale with no issues. If there is contention it's usually pretty obvious from the dump.
I can only assume that your company's software is quite poorly designed from a threading perspective.
Not bizarre, just what we see. For the most part, we don't write the apps that we have to serve up. Network h/w vendors provide management s/w and we have to implement it in a scalable, available structure and we have to meet performance and other typical requirements. Fact is, most of the software is crap.
However, even when we have software from vendors who claim to have addressed threading in their application architecture, design and implementation, we find performance issues that preclude the use of the Sun T servers.
Writing fully parallel apps that don't have blocking paths seems to be difficult. I have run DTrace sessions to find performance blocks for software vendors when they appear to be unable to find the issues themselves. These sessions usually reveal file handle and memory leaks as well. The joys of using someone else's library (jar) and assuming it will handle everything consistantly. And this is with "mature" applications.
Often, a s/w vendor seems to have made attempts at full threading but they are married to an app server that screws things up.
I am no longer shocked by vendors lack of expertise with testing in a production level environment. It's like the developers ride around in go-carts on a closed track and figure that freeways will be the same only a bit bigger.
In the end, we have found very few places where the current crop of T servers are appropriate.
Been there, done that and suffered. Too many out of the box h/w failures from Sun; poor support for h/w; late delivery of h/w; driver problems.... the list goes on. M series are data center pigs (power, space, weight) and for any given configuration I can get a better configuration elsewhere for a hell of a lot less capital cost and operating expense. As far as Intel based Sun h/w, we have tried that as well but again, competitors deliver product that is better supported, cheaper, and more reliable. Plus Sun always does something quirky, whether it is another LOM flavor or some weird driver that has to be loaded before you can run Win server.
Hey, I am a Solaris guy back to 2.5 and a big champion of the o/s. I used to love their h/w but truth is there is better performance, better reliability, better cost effectiveness down another path.
Sun's Sparc processors have a lot of cores which are great for large amounts of concurrent connections to either an (open source) database, file or webserver (as most of the open source designs spawn processes for a limited number of connections).
The T series are great web servers. As a db server, your mileage will vary and usually the result is not that great. Application servers also don't fare well on the T systems. Problem is that the T servers are great if you can run multiple instances of the same thing, or if the app is truly multi-threaded. In practice, multi-threaded apps are almost non-existant. Well, at least the apps that you want to run on Solaris are problematic.
Sparc is great with a well designed system and application underneath it and will beat the crap out of a 48U rack of x86 machines on those specific applications in only 6U worth of space. The cost however is heavy initially with the cheapest machinery coming in at ~$10k+ and easily going into the 100k+ for a full set.
Horsefeathers.
Maybe back in Y2K that was true but not now. In comparison with the M servers, in the same amount of rack space, Intel based servers provide better performance with a lower power draw, lower capital cost, and lower floor load (weight).
eg: M5000 with 4 quad core SPARC cpus @ 2.5 GHz will take 10 RU of space, draws well over 4 Kw (!) of power, weighs in at 275 lbs (!!!) and lists at $81,000. Oh, and the pig is about 31" deep which throws my rack cable design all to hell. Two healthy guys and a rack lift are mandatory for installation.
A Dell R900 with 4 quad core Xeon cpus @ 2.93 GHz is 4 RU of space, draws just over 1 Kw of power, and weighs 92 lbs. List is about $22,000 and it is only 27" deep. If you don't like Dell, similar systems can be found through IBM or HP.
Our internal testing puts the Dell well ahead of the M server for performance with our apps. Plus I can run VMware on the Dell. In particular, Oracle RAC performs very well on the Xeons as compared to the M 5000.
We used to see a performance advantage to the SPARC RISC architecture over the Intel but that was a long time ago. There is still an SMP advantage to Solaris but the instances where that advantage shows are few.
M servers are ugly no matter how you look at them. We had a network h/w vendor whose management app only runs on Solaris and is only certified for the M series. We bought the freakin' h/w but everyone hates it. The worst thing is if you need support you get an idiot from a contracted office IT support company (name left out to protect the incompetent). These guys are used to office PCs and printers and have no clue about 7x24 services and have little experience with the h/w they support. They are always on the phone to Sun for advice.
Sun needed heavy investment and lots of R&D to continue to compete in the h/w arena. They didn't have it and Fujitsu was no help. IBM, Intel and AMD poured tons of $$$ into chip development while Sun kept missing release dates. While Intel and IBM developed high-density fabrication methods with remarkable decreases in execution cycle times, Sun was stuck with technology that was rapidly being left behind.
On the o/s side, Solaris is a great stand-alone o/s but Sun almost totally missed the transition to virtualization. Their moves in that area have been too little and too late, just like the h/w development side. IBM's P systems and VMware on Intel are so advanced in terms of flexibility and functionality that it isn't funny.
A lot of Sun customers stuck around when they should have been moving on to competing products. Sun had lots of opportunity to fix things but they never delivered.
Sun's executive just milked their cash cows (large unix/solaris shops) until one day the herd dried up. They were lucky to find a buyer for the company.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey fire-hosers: shouldn't this be marked binspam? It's just a Sony press release... advertising in news clothing.
It is an American website with a part-time Canadian worldview, you insensitive clod.
We think, therefore we think we are.
Yup. And sometimes it is just one significant act that puts a politician into the category of statesman. Case in point, Thomas Clement Douglas:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saskatchewan_Doctors'_Strike
I'll say it again: Cuccinelli is a political opportunist.
Isn't
"Any POLITICIAN same same OPPORTUNIST" a tautology?
But, hey, if you want to treat the rules of formal debate as a method for ignoring points of view that don't mesh with your own, that's your choice. We have limited lifetimes, and promoting style over substance can be a effective coping mechanism.
I'll say it again: Cuccinelli is a political opportunist.
Hey Jeremy... a few things: first, my real objection is that the "ad hominem" term is largely being used incorrectly... and while I am at it, is not always a fallacy. Someone said it wasn't fallacious here and I am just saying it is a false argument in this case. If Ken Cuccinelli's character says something about the point in hand then that link should be explicitly made.
Second: please don't include someone else's argument in a quote that kind of looks like it came from me. eh, this is minor. The slippery slope comment is very true.
Third: I wasn't ignoring anyone's point of view because of formalities of debate. I just don't like sloppy thinking in the guise of critical analysis. I didn't say anything about the merits of anyones POV.
Cheers!
It should be served as leftovers. You know, tomb marrow will be better.
mmmmmm...... tomb marrow! glghglghglgh droool
Having those packets of crackers seems to be (IMO) an American thing. So why should the Chinese have had them? Unless of course you think that /. is the centre of the universe and nothing exists outside US culture.
Better than Vegamite jokes Mr. Oz ;->
Didn't we get crackers from China?
Sigh... don't you have anything better to do than make lame comments about NA culture on an NA website?
Oh, wait. This is IDLE!
Of course you have nothing better to do! My bad.
We humans are really really really small.
Puny humans. Space toy make Hulk angry.
It's fascinating to think that in just about four years the first man-made object will leave our solar system. And to think that only a little over 100 years ago we were still trying to get ourselves airborne. We've come a long way. I wish I knew what we'd be doing 100 years from today.
er... picking through radioctive rubble and looking for a scrap to eat? ... avoiding Triffids?
I think I can I think I can I think I can.....
Well doggie. The ad hominem is still a false argument in this case, although it is happy making to dance the puppet about and make fun of it. ;->
Who Mr. Cuccinelli is and what he has pushed as an agenda before does not say anything about the validity of the case in point. It is more that this is another example of his political direction and it appears that he is consistent in his beliefs.
So.... the fact that he is consistently conservative does not argue for or against the validity of the case before the court.
If you are wagering on the outcome of a case that he presents to the courts then there may be a correlation with the other cases that would be helpful to set the odds.
Where else will these people get a chance to make a living? Come on, show some humanity!
Wow. Touchy touchy. I didn't put AC down, or insult AC; I just asked why not login? Easy question. A good answer would be "too lazy", and I would certainly think that was valid. Another great answer would be "I just like posting AC". Of course, frothing and ranting is always an excellent response that is readily accepted for entertainment value if nothing else.
Logging in doesn't prove anything. It's just a community thing and helps to put into context what you say by indexing other comments.
No need for home address, real name, financials etc unless you feel a desire to provide those details.
I wouldn't recommend it though.
Cheers, and have a better day tomorrow!
You certainly have something to say... with all respect, why don't you login? I post AC sometimes when it's best for me but I find its best to attach an account to my statements. IMHO.
... and of course, one good rant deserves another.
Albeit an interesting and informative rant.
And long. With emphasis.
Good-o!
Obviously they have their heads stuck in the sand. Data center footprint issues alone make it cost friendly to move off of Sun. Given how much now runs on IBM or Intel chips and given the maturity of Linux, there really is no reason not to and lots of positives for getting rid of Sun.
I will say this though, IMHO, Solaris is still a far better industrial strength o/s than Linux. This is an opinion based on years of work with both. Solaris' i/o handling, network stack, scheduler, stability, and transparency of upgrades are superior to Linux across the board.
But Linux works, and it works well. And there are no problems with Linux that cannot be dealt with one way or another. And there's no bullshit. And I can run it on the best h/w. Sun h/w sucks. I know this is a troll statement but I have worked with Sun h/w for 20 yrs and the current offerings are outdated, relatively poor performing and power hungry. And heavy. And ugly.
Virtualization choices and functionality are better with Linux, and that is the number one issue today.
The only place I would use Sun h/w today is for either web or dns services. The T servers running Solaris really kick butt for high network connectivity, highly parallel internet services.
Bye bye Sun. It was nice knowing you.
Are there ANY Sun shops left out there? Who are they selling to???
Moving away from Sun/Solaris is so easy now.
chaise-lounge
It's chaise longue, bozo -- as in long chair.
Crikey! Furniture Nerds!
That's quite a bizarre claim. I've looked at hundreds of Java dumps from hundreds of different customers and the vast majority are doing multithreading on a massive scale with no issues. If there is contention it's usually pretty obvious from the dump.
I can only assume that your company's software is quite poorly designed from a threading perspective.
Not bizarre, just what we see. For the most part, we don't write the apps that we have to serve up. Network h/w vendors provide management s/w and we have to implement it in a scalable, available structure and we have to meet performance and other typical requirements. Fact is, most of the software is crap.
However, even when we have software from vendors who claim to have addressed threading in their application architecture, design and implementation, we find performance issues that preclude the use of the Sun T servers.
Writing fully parallel apps that don't have blocking paths seems to be difficult. I have run DTrace sessions to find performance blocks for software vendors when they appear to be unable to find the issues themselves. These sessions usually reveal file handle and memory leaks as well. The joys of using someone else's library (jar) and assuming it will handle everything consistantly. And this is with "mature" applications.
Often, a s/w vendor seems to have made attempts at full threading but they are married to an app server that screws things up.
I am no longer shocked by vendors lack of expertise with testing in a production level environment. It's like the developers ride around in go-carts on a closed track and figure that freeways will be the same only a bit bigger.
In the end, we have found very few places where the current crop of T servers are appropriate.
BTW, I am a h/w o/s guy and not a s/w developer.
Been there, done that and suffered. Too many out of the box h/w failures from Sun; poor support for h/w; late delivery of h/w; driver problems.... the list goes on. M series are data center pigs (power, space, weight) and for any given configuration I can get a better configuration elsewhere for a hell of a lot less capital cost and operating expense. As far as Intel based Sun h/w, we have tried that as well but again, competitors deliver product that is better supported, cheaper, and more reliable. Plus Sun always does something quirky, whether it is another LOM flavor or some weird driver that has to be loaded before you can run Win server.
Hey, I am a Solaris guy back to 2.5 and a big champion of the o/s. I used to love their h/w but truth is there is better performance, better reliability, better cost effectiveness down another path.
Sun's Sparc processors have a lot of cores which are great for large amounts of concurrent connections to either an (open source) database, file or webserver (as most of the open source designs spawn processes for a limited number of connections).
The T series are great web servers. As a db server, your mileage will vary and usually the result is not that great. Application servers also don't fare well on the T systems. Problem is that the T servers are great if you can run multiple instances of the same thing, or if the app is truly multi-threaded. In practice, multi-threaded apps are almost non-existant. Well, at least the apps that you want to run on Solaris are problematic.
Sparc is great with a well designed system and application underneath it and will beat the crap out of a 48U rack of x86 machines on those specific applications in only 6U worth of space. The cost however is heavy initially with the cheapest machinery coming in at ~$10k+ and easily going into the 100k+ for a full set.
Horsefeathers.
Maybe back in Y2K that was true but not now. In comparison with the M servers, in the same amount of rack space, Intel based servers provide better performance with a lower power draw, lower capital cost, and lower floor load (weight).
eg: M5000 with 4 quad core SPARC cpus @ 2.5 GHz will take 10 RU of space, draws well over 4 Kw (!) of power, weighs in at 275 lbs (!!!) and lists at $81,000. Oh, and the pig is about 31" deep which throws my rack cable design all to hell. Two healthy guys and a rack lift are mandatory for installation.
A Dell R900 with 4 quad core Xeon cpus @ 2.93 GHz is 4 RU of space, draws just over 1 Kw of power, and weighs 92 lbs. List is about $22,000 and it is only 27" deep. If you don't like Dell, similar systems can be found through IBM or HP.
Our internal testing puts the Dell well ahead of the M server for performance with our apps. Plus I can run VMware on the Dell. In particular, Oracle RAC performs very well on the Xeons as compared to the M 5000.
We used to see a performance advantage to the SPARC RISC architecture over the Intel but that was a long time ago. There is still an SMP advantage to Solaris but the instances where that advantage shows are few.
M servers are ugly no matter how you look at them. We had a network h/w vendor whose management app only runs on Solaris and is only certified for the M series. We bought the freakin' h/w but everyone hates it. The worst thing is if you need support you get an idiot from a contracted office IT support company (name left out to protect the incompetent). These guys are used to office PCs and printers and have no clue about 7x24 services and have little experience with the h/w they support. They are always on the phone to Sun for advice.
Sun needed heavy investment and lots of R&D to continue to compete in the h/w arena. They didn't have it and Fujitsu was no help. IBM, Intel and AMD poured tons of $$$ into chip development while Sun kept missing release dates. While Intel and IBM developed high-density fabrication methods with remarkable decreases in execution cycle times, Sun was stuck with technology that was rapidly being left behind.
On the o/s side, Solaris is a great stand-alone o/s but Sun almost totally missed the transition to virtualization. Their moves in that area have been too little and too late, just like the h/w development side. IBM's P systems and VMware on Intel are so advanced in terms of flexibility and functionality that it isn't funny.
A lot of Sun customers stuck around when they should have been moving on to competing products. Sun had lots of opportunity to fix things but they never delivered.
Sun's executive just milked their cash cows (large unix/solaris shops) until one day the herd dried up. They were lucky to find a buyer for the company.