People using Oracle will be buying SUN hardware in their next upgrade, it's what Oracle says they must use, it will be what they are using - that's the whole point of buying Oracle, they take the blame if it doesn't work, but you *must* buy their medicine.
No, they won't be buying it if they don't want it. That makes no sense whatsoever, unless what you appear to be saying is that Oracle will have to force hardware that many will see as inferior on to people? I'm afraid that's not a winning strategy.
As the OP says, people have been doing that and dumping Sun hardware and software for years. If that wasn't the case then they wouldn't have got bought by Oracle and wouldn't have been losing $100 million per month as they have been doing. That's the material point.
And that's why IBM is raking in ever more $BILLIONS in mainframe sales.
You and the post you're defending are like a press release from 1989.
Sun does not have an IBM mainframe competitor. Their hardware and software sales have crossed over heavily with x86 and then Linux resulting in their lunch being seriously eaten. If anyone thinks Sun and Oracle are going to compete with IBM then they're going to be very disappointed.
Replacing IBM mainframes was a Sun press release 1989. Unfortunately, not only were they squeezed from the bottom up by more powerful hardware and capable software, the high-end mainframe sector where IBM live that they so derided at one time and that would have largely insulated them is something they're not a part of. Given that mainframes tend to continue to exist for historical application and code and inertia reasons Oracle/Sun are going to find it totally impossible to break into there now.
No. Nobody's moving away from Oracle - that rhetorical question doesn't make you sound like a smartass, but rather its less intelligent opposite.
It would help if you could actually read. He said Sun/Oracle, which clearly means the old Sun and new business Oracle is now running, not that people are moving off Oracle databases en masse.
What matters to Oracle's customers who buy Sun hardware is that their databases run as fast as possible, as that's the limiting factor on those customers' businesses.
They're already doing that and have done for some time, and many have done it by migrating off Sun hardware and software. That's why Sun got bought out.
Reducing the number of cores isn't designed to help. It's designed to leave that amount of transistors on the CPU available for making Oracle DBs run as fast as possible in the few simultaneous threads that Oracle needs for DB performance.
People have solved single threaded performance over the past ten years by moving to x86, hence the current dire state of Sun's hardware business. IBM operates in a different realm of mainframes that Sun doesn't have. Sun's business has crossed over far too much with the commodity hardware and software that's been available for some time.
Do you care about crypto at all? If so, the T-series CPUs have on-die MD5, SHA-1, SHA-2 family, DES, 3DES, AES (multiple modes of operation), RC4, RSA (up to 2Kb), and ECC acceleration, as well as RNG. The T3s can do almost 80 Kop/sec for RSA 1024. All you have to do is link against the Solaris-provided OpenSSL library....
No one cares, seriously. encryption acceleration/decryption is not going to save Sun's hardware business nor stop it from losing money. For those that need them they have had hardware accelerated encryption and decryption for some time.
I don't think losing some grumpy OpenOffice and OpenSolaris users qualifies as "everyone has already decided to move away from Oracle". Java will be used for a long time to come, and has big time penetration in the enterprise world, as does Oracle's database offerings.
Seriously, who mods this crap insightful?
In case you didn't get the memo then the OP said Sun/Oracle, and over the past ten years Sun slowly went bust because Solaris and SPARC users jumped ship to x86 and Linux systems, in particular. Oracle stated that Sun were even losing $100 million per month. If they're running Java they're running it there. Oracle database have been run successfully for a very long time on such systems, and a lot of those customers have already jumped ship. It's going to be a tall order for Oracle to convince them to go back.
I mean, if someone comes in and claims you don't have rights to certain information that some people don't want you to see then that's goodbye to the press and any kind of journalistic investigation. I suppose that's kind of the point.
There have been reports that a government inquiry prompted us not to serve WikiLeaks any longer. That is inaccurate.
Hmmmm. OK. Fair enough.
It’s clear that WikiLeaks doesn’t own or otherwise control all the rights to this classified content. Further, it is not credible that the extraordinary volume of 250,000 classified documents that WikiLeaks is publishing could have been carefully redacted in such a way as to ensure that they weren’t putting innocent people in jeopardy. Human rights organizations have in fact written to WikiLeaks asking them to exercise caution and not release the names or identities of human rights defenders who might be persecuted by their governments.
Right..... That sounds like a pretty political statement to me. Firstly, Amazon cannot say whether or not WikiLeaks controlled or had 'rights' to the content on there nor is it Amazon's place to judge whether it was putting anyone in jeopardy. Given that's almost the exact wording of the government 'enquiry' then the first statement seems grossly inaccurate. None of what Amazon says has been established legally.
Wrong answer. XFS is extremely prone to data corruption if the system goes down uncleanly for any reason. We may strive for nine nines, but stuff still happens.
What? That's true of any filesystem, and especially ZFS as practical experience shows. The only way to reliably keep any filesystem going is to keep it on a UPS and talking about 'nine nines' in that context is just laughable.
I keep hearing this shit over and over, mostly on idiot infested Linux distribution and Solaris fanboy forums, and it's just getting unbearable to see.
It's very simple. LVM snapshots require free volume set space. If your volume group is 10 TB, then you must leave unallocated space on it for the snapshots to consume.
You make it sound like you need an extra 10 terabytes to backup a 10 terabyte volume with LVM. You don't. It takes a snapshot and the free space you need is for further changes to the volume. ZFS is the same, except it's more intelligent about how it can use any free space over multiple volumes for snapshots and with things like dedpluication it will get much better, but you still need free space to perform them. You make it sound like ZFS snapshots are completely free as I see many ZFS proponents saying, and it's crap. The OP is also right about the time that ZFS snapshots can take. It's far too long.
This is a road Btrfs will have to travel because it also has to be *the* general purpose Linux filesystem and will have to solve problems and be in places where ZFS is not.
God, I'm sick of hearing about this 'checksumming' bullshit from ZFS proponents. What happens if a checksum says your data is corrupted? Yer, you need a mirror and if you don't have one then it really doesn't matter how many checksums you perform if you can't recover the data. It's the same for any fileystem you use. It's a nice to have meaning you'll know you have problems sooner but that is all that it does but in these days of cheap disk storage and cheap mirroring and backups people are not going to like their filesystem being slower. If that's important to people, when that's why they spent boatloads on stuff ike Netapp.
Additionally, the reason why ZFS has caught so many corruption problems in Solaris that people think is so brilliant is because Solaris's disk controller device drivers, mostly IDE and SATA, are utter crap.
Funny how it is on FreeBSD, and things generally just work.
Yer. FreeBSD continued to support OSS perfectly fine when a lot of Linux developers said that OSS was unsupportable and hasn't had any trouble at all, with Linux systems having to shoehorn tons of userspace crap to support mixing etc. and we've been through God knows how many over the past decade. I wish Linus took more of an interest in sound and called this out for what it is.
Stuff in userspace tends to go wrong. If you can handle a pre-requisite in the kernel then do so./dev/dsp is still the only interface in the kernel that tells you to get lost if it has been locked. Imagine if other kernel interfaces could only do one thing at a time. That's the only reason for Pulse being in existence - mixing. I'm telling you, Linus would accept a patch for in-kernel mixing tomorrow because it makes sense.
As for the rest, there are still a list of bugs as long as your arm regarding peculiar cases that will never get fixed, but they might if we wait long enough. Why you would want network streaming in such a system before you get local sound output right is beyond me, but that seems to be Lennart. He's stuck patches into Pulse in the past that don't actually do anything and blamed kernels for performance issues.
The effect is exactly the same. This is just Lennart trying to hijack another useful development thread and trying to tell us how systemd will solve everything.
This smells a bit fishy. He was lazy enough to use a test bank, but he's now writing a new exam from scratch that he should have done to start off with. Test banks fall into the wrong hands, they always have and they sometimes get innocently handed out as preparation material. This doesn't just happen overnight. There's also no real proof at all that any one individual has cheated either. Statistics doesn't give you any evidence at all other than that something may have happened. They might find the source of the leak, but that's about it.
It sounds like the lecturer is covering up his own part in this and it's entirely possible that those investigating would conclude that the leak was his fault, at least in part and maybe in whole.
They're just giving away the development tools for free. So when/if developers use them, and end users like the result, they've got you by the short and curlies. It's a time honoured tradition, often rightly or wrongly compared to a drug dealer's "the first hit is free, kid".
Given that Solaris usage has been declining for ten years now, Oracle is pushing Solaris back into an ever higher end niche as a response and those using free development tools have Unix-like alternatives they can use for any purpose it's a bit optimistic to think they have anyone by the short and curlies. You can have as many hits as you like from other dealers and many would consider that what Oracle is selling is sherbet. I just can't see where Solaris is going now where it hasn't already been or tried to be.
Solaris had it's shot at being something the Slashdot crowd could pick up and run with, but given that you can't use Solaris for anything useful now I'm not sure how this qualifies as news. Solaris is now a very high-end OS that's as relevant to people as AIX is, because that's the only feasible place it can survive now.
I would skip.Net and look at C++ and COM for Windows. There are countless systems still needing maintaining with those and they are becoming more scarce. Look at the jobs in these and salaries are only going up.
What hasn't come to light is Halliburton's role in all of this. They're not exactly the most trustworthy company in the world and it's strange that this has come out now. As far as I know BP had outsourced all of their drilling which is probably how this stupid state of affairs came about.
Why would it be 'evidently' true? The previous versions of Windows Phone were flops and this new one has sold far less than all its major rivals in the same time period. How is it likely not to be a flop? Why would that be FUD - unless of course somone just doesn't like the facts as they stand?
I always thought the traditional breakup time was after Christmas, when you'd spent far too much time with her and her family and ended up never wanting to see them again and the only reason she was with you over the festive period was to avoid being alone?
Ahhhh, it's amusing to hear weenies talking about bloat and arguing for software that does less, which is what is behind that word. Sadly, that isn't going to get free desktops competing with Windows and OS X.
Slashdot Mirror
You make absolutely no sense.
People using Oracle will be buying SUN hardware in their next upgrade, it's what Oracle says they must use, it will be what they are using - that's the whole point of buying Oracle, they take the blame if it doesn't work, but you *must* buy their medicine.
No, they won't be buying it if they don't want it. That makes no sense whatsoever, unless what you appear to be saying is that Oracle will have to force hardware that many will see as inferior on to people? I'm afraid that's not a winning strategy.
As the OP says, people have been doing that and dumping Sun hardware and software for years. If that wasn't the case then they wouldn't have got bought by Oracle and wouldn't have been losing $100 million per month as they have been doing. That's the material point.
And that's why IBM is raking in ever more $BILLIONS in mainframe sales.
You and the post you're defending are like a press release from 1989.
Sun does not have an IBM mainframe competitor. Their hardware and software sales have crossed over heavily with x86 and then Linux resulting in their lunch being seriously eaten. If anyone thinks Sun and Oracle are going to compete with IBM then they're going to be very disappointed.
Replacing IBM mainframes was a Sun press release 1989. Unfortunately, not only were they squeezed from the bottom up by more powerful hardware and capable software, the high-end mainframe sector where IBM live that they so derided at one time and that would have largely insulated them is something they're not a part of. Given that mainframes tend to continue to exist for historical application and code and inertia reasons Oracle/Sun are going to find it totally impossible to break into there now.
No. Nobody's moving away from Oracle - that rhetorical question doesn't make you sound like a smartass, but rather its less intelligent opposite.
It would help if you could actually read. He said Sun/Oracle, which clearly means the old Sun and new business Oracle is now running, not that people are moving off Oracle databases en masse.
What matters to Oracle's customers who buy Sun hardware is that their databases run as fast as possible, as that's the limiting factor on those customers' businesses.
They're already doing that and have done for some time, and many have done it by migrating off Sun hardware and software. That's why Sun got bought out.
Reducing the number of cores isn't designed to help. It's designed to leave that amount of transistors on the CPU available for making Oracle DBs run as fast as possible in the few simultaneous threads that Oracle needs for DB performance.
People have solved single threaded performance over the past ten years by moving to x86, hence the current dire state of Sun's hardware business. IBM operates in a different realm of mainframes that Sun doesn't have. Sun's business has crossed over far too much with the commodity hardware and software that's been available for some time.
Do you care about crypto at all? If so, the T-series CPUs have on-die MD5, SHA-1, SHA-2 family, DES, 3DES, AES (multiple modes of operation), RC4, RSA (up to 2Kb), and ECC acceleration, as well as RNG. The T3s can do almost 80 Kop/sec for RSA 1024. All you have to do is link against the Solaris-provided OpenSSL library....
No one cares, seriously. encryption acceleration/decryption is not going to save Sun's hardware business nor stop it from losing money. For those that need them they have had hardware accelerated encryption and decryption for some time.
I don't think losing some grumpy OpenOffice and OpenSolaris users qualifies as "everyone has already decided to move away from Oracle". Java will be used for a long time to come, and has big time penetration in the enterprise world, as does Oracle's database offerings.
Seriously, who mods this crap insightful?
In case you didn't get the memo then the OP said Sun/Oracle, and over the past ten years Sun slowly went bust because Solaris and SPARC users jumped ship to x86 and Linux systems, in particular. Oracle stated that Sun were even losing $100 million per month. If they're running Java they're running it there. Oracle database have been run successfully for a very long time on such systems, and a lot of those customers have already jumped ship. It's going to be a tall order for Oracle to convince them to go back.
Well, to be honest it's a case of 'what goes around comes around' where publishers are concerned. They've been exploiting writers for years.
I mean, if someone comes in and claims you don't have rights to certain information that some people don't want you to see then that's goodbye to the press and any kind of journalistic investigation. I suppose that's kind of the point.
Hmmmm. OK. Fair enough.
Right..... That sounds like a pretty political statement to me. Firstly, Amazon cannot say whether or not WikiLeaks controlled or had 'rights' to the content on there nor is it Amazon's place to judge whether it was putting anyone in jeopardy. Given that's almost the exact wording of the government 'enquiry' then the first statement seems grossly inaccurate. None of what Amazon says has been established legally.
What? That's true of any filesystem, and especially ZFS as practical experience shows. The only way to reliably keep any filesystem going is to keep it on a UPS and talking about 'nine nines' in that context is just laughable.
I keep hearing this shit over and over, mostly on idiot infested Linux distribution and Solaris fanboy forums, and it's just getting unbearable to see.
You make it sound like you need an extra 10 terabytes to backup a 10 terabyte volume with LVM. You don't. It takes a snapshot and the free space you need is for further changes to the volume. ZFS is the same, except it's more intelligent about how it can use any free space over multiple volumes for snapshots and with things like dedpluication it will get much better, but you still need free space to perform them. You make it sound like ZFS snapshots are completely free as I see many ZFS proponents saying, and it's crap. The OP is also right about the time that ZFS snapshots can take. It's far too long.
This is a road Btrfs will have to travel because it also has to be *the* general purpose Linux filesystem and will have to solve problems and be in places where ZFS is not.
God, I'm sick of hearing about this 'checksumming' bullshit from ZFS proponents. What happens if a checksum says your data is corrupted? Yer, you need a mirror and if you don't have one then it really doesn't matter how many checksums you perform if you can't recover the data. It's the same for any fileystem you use. It's a nice to have meaning you'll know you have problems sooner but that is all that it does but in these days of cheap disk storage and cheap mirroring and backups people are not going to like their filesystem being slower. If that's important to people, when that's why they spent boatloads on stuff ike Netapp.
Additionally, the reason why ZFS has caught so many corruption problems in Solaris that people think is so brilliant is because Solaris's disk controller device drivers, mostly IDE and SATA, are utter crap.
Yer. FreeBSD continued to support OSS perfectly fine when a lot of Linux developers said that OSS was unsupportable and hasn't had any trouble at all, with Linux systems having to shoehorn tons of userspace crap to support mixing etc. and we've been through God knows how many over the past decade. I wish Linus took more of an interest in sound and called this out for what it is.
Oh, and he steadfastly doesn't think that audio is a unversal system service........ Nuts.
Stuff in userspace tends to go wrong. If you can handle a pre-requisite in the kernel then do so. /dev/dsp is still the only interface in the kernel that tells you to get lost if it has been locked. Imagine if other kernel interfaces could only do one thing at a time. That's the only reason for Pulse being in existence - mixing. I'm telling you, Linus would accept a patch for in-kernel mixing tomorrow because it makes sense.
As for the rest, there are still a list of bugs as long as your arm regarding peculiar cases that will never get fixed, but they might if we wait long enough. Why you would want network streaming in such a system before you get local sound output right is beyond me, but that seems to be Lennart. He's stuck patches into Pulse in the past that don't actually do anything and blamed kernels for performance issues.
The effect is exactly the same. This is just Lennart trying to hijack another useful development thread and trying to tell us how systemd will solve everything.
Indeed. Lennart has a history of naff userspace stuff that should be handled by default in the kernel with PulseAudio.
This smells a bit fishy. He was lazy enough to use a test bank, but he's now writing a new exam from scratch that he should have done to start off with. Test banks fall into the wrong hands, they always have and they sometimes get innocently handed out as preparation material. This doesn't just happen overnight. There's also no real proof at all that any one individual has cheated either. Statistics doesn't give you any evidence at all other than that something may have happened. They might find the source of the leak, but that's about it.
It sounds like the lecturer is covering up his own part in this and it's entirely possible that those investigating would conclude that the leak was his fault, at least in part and maybe in whole.
Given that Solaris usage has been declining for ten years now, Oracle is pushing Solaris back into an ever higher end niche as a response and those using free development tools have Unix-like alternatives they can use for any purpose it's a bit optimistic to think they have anyone by the short and curlies. You can have as many hits as you like from other dealers and many would consider that what Oracle is selling is sherbet. I just can't see where Solaris is going now where it hasn't already been or tried to be.
Solaris had it's shot at being something the Slashdot crowd could pick up and run with, but given that you can't use Solaris for anything useful now I'm not sure how this qualifies as news. Solaris is now a very high-end OS that's as relevant to people as AIX is, because that's the only feasible place it can survive now.
I would skip .Net and look at C++ and COM for Windows. There are countless systems still needing maintaining with those and they are becoming more scarce. Look at the jobs in these and salaries are only going up.
What hasn't come to light is Halliburton's role in all of this. They're not exactly the most trustworthy company in the world and it's strange that this has come out now. As far as I know BP had outsourced all of their drilling which is probably how this stupid state of affairs came about.
Do some maths..........
Why would it be 'evidently' true? The previous versions of Windows Phone were flops and this new one has sold far less than all its major rivals in the same time period. How is it likely not to be a flop? Why would that be FUD - unless of course somone just doesn't like the facts as they stand?
You didn't pay attention to the article. This is more than just I/O issues. This is about easily adding new disk space and resources when required.
I always thought the traditional breakup time was after Christmas, when you'd spent far too much time with her and her family and ended up never wanting to see them again and the only reason she was with you over the festive period was to avoid being alone?
Ahhhh, it's amusing to hear weenies talking about bloat and arguing for software that does less, which is what is behind that word. Sadly, that isn't going to get free desktops competing with Windows and OS X.
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000020.html