Posts by Mad Mike 1379 publicly visible posts • joined 30 May 2007
No, the original poster is right. The article talks about the 'land mass' heating and cooling more rapidly than the ocean. Not that people living on that land mass may cause it to heat up. So, the poster is correct in his comment on what the article says. However, I do agree that those people living on the land masses could be emitting pollution etc. that might affect the speed and amount of the heating and cooling of that land mass, but that's not what the article says.
@JDX
I never said Windows should be given away because Linux is. Also, if you look into the financials, you'll actually find the vast majority of revenue for each product is actually from business, not home use. So, giving it away for home use won't actually cost that much, certainly not $billions.
Microsoft also have a history of dipping their toe into this. They actually got into their current position by effectively giving Windows away with every PC sold. The cost to the manufacturers was negligable, but it got their operating system into the position it is now. To extend that to retail and everyone would cost very little. HP had a deal with Microsoft that saw Office distributed with each of their PCs for free. Not every Office products, but Word and Excel and slightly cut down versions. But, good enough for home use by most people. So, I'm not talking about giving away Ultimate (or whatever they want to call it) edition for home use. Just something with enough functionality to ensure people stay with Office. That deal with HP was another toe dip. Again, the licensing loss would be minimal, but it would cement their position and ensure everyone uses it.
I'm not suggesting they should do it for altruistic reasons. I'm talking about it for cold hard business reasons. Negligable cost and keeps everyone on your software, especially businesses where the revenue is. Result.
Development tools as well? Why not. Don't know what the financials are around them, so can't comment, but if it ensures you keep your business use, why not give away home use?
Eventually Microsoft and all other similar companies will realise a few truths. Quite a lot of software companies have already realised and moved their models, but those hell bent on the most profit possible now at the expense of the future are still lagging behind. I suspect terms such as this will cause Microsoft even more issues before the EU soon.
Microsoft should either give away their operating systems and office products for free, or a nominal amount to cover distribution etc. The money they make on them retail is simply not worth the trouble and bad press. Also, people running these products at home is part of the reason why companies buy them. People already know how to use them, saves training etc. In other words, home sales drives business sales. Business sales is where the money is.
When home users are faced with having to shell out constantly for Office on top of the already silly costs of Windows (assuming not OEM), they are likely to move away and then the benefit of having the same software at home and work is lost. Maybe if people are mostly skilled in OpenOffice or whatever, companies might switch as well? The ubiquity of Microsoft is largely due to ensuring they remain on almost all computers sold. If this starts to be eroded, they will suffer financially in the future.
"I'm just stating the facts. It doesn't really matter whose case I undermine: It's the simple truth and I have no particular axe to grind and emotional attachment to the matter either way."
I know you keep calling them facts, but they're not. You haven't provided anything to back up the facts. They're what you believe to be true, but just because you believe it, doesn't make it fact.
"I have a lot of exposure to illegal downloading because I'm tech savvy and not too old, and the people around me in life do it. That gives me a perception bias that it's common. But actually ask 'normal' people over the age of 25, and the intricacies of TPB are likely to be an unknown factor to them. Hell: Even most of the people who I know who pirate aren't in the IT sector, don't read IT news and have NO IDEA about the politics of TPB, merely how to get to it and use it."
Someone doesn't need to know the technicalities to 'understand' (at least at the high level) the issues. Even someone who just downloads and knows little more about the TPB knows it's golliath against david. They also know their downloads will disappear. They also know the media companies are stomping around like big bullies as the mass media are putting the stories out there. If you reduce it to soundbites, the TPB look even better to people and the media companies even worse.
"Just because piracy is not a majority interest, it doesn't mean that it's essentially victimless and not costing lots of money. Over-claimed, ,vastly vastly over-inflated amounts of money, sure. But still lots of money. Which makes the anti-piracy groups legitimate in their goals for the industry which they represent. You really think that they should just give in and pack up because 90% of us aren't ripping off every movie that's released?"
I'm not saying it doesn't have a victim and doesn't cost money. What I was simply saying is that if the entire populatuion of the planet were pirating all the time, claiming losses of hundreds of millions or billions might be reasonable. However, if only say 1% of the planets population is pirating, either the costs simply can't be that high, or their broadband connections must be permanently at full throttle. In other words, the losses must be in proportion to the number taking part in the piracy. Either way, the figures given out by the media companies and the methods by which they come to them (e.g. every download is a lost sale) are simply preposterous and actually undermine their case in the eyes of the public.
"Fuck the big labels and the big-money artists. What about the small label and Indy artists who are working their arses off and doing all their own work and being stiffed by piracy? Those are the ones that I actually give a shit about, and those are the only ones who are affected in a real and tangible way, yet those are the ones who are rather ignored in the debate. The anti-piracy crowd aren't being paid to represent them, and the pro-piracy crowd are busy lumping them in with the major labels and conveniently forgetting them in their keenness to see their point illustrated in the 'best' possible light."
I agree totally with what you've said. However, they can do things about it. Firstly, they can publically disown the actions of the larger labels and artists and the anti-piracy organisations that pretend to operate for everyone. Secondly, they can move to a business model that makes it less of an issue. Unfortunately, in any war (and this is a war), there is always collatoral and small labels and indies are the victims. Maybe if they were seen to have a decent business model and distanced themselves, people might prefer dealing with them than the big boys? Piracy is a knee jerk reaction by people to the excesses of the industry in the past when the tools became available to do it easily and quickly. No matter how much people want to turn the clock back, the genie is out the bottle and will stay out until the masses decide to put it back in. They won't do that in response to threats. So, the pragmatic view is to work with the consumer rather than against them, but that's exactly what the labels are refusing to do. Hence, the war will continue.
"No, legislatures with a code on copyright generally include explicit fair use clauses, including among other for satirical, journalistic, and educational purposes. But use of a logo for purposes of description and identification is also pretty universally accepted as 'fair'. This isn't a case of 'passing-off', or a case where goodwill or material benefits are being unjustly enjoyed without a morally and/or legally proper level of permission and/or recompense. It is a very far cry from Pirate Bay destroying human beings and industries and art through stealing the fruits of peoples' professional lives. TPB has no mission. The copyright org here has a very important one. Weighing these factors will always play a role in any judicial balancing of harms."
I agree there is a balancing of harms when weighing the law. However, that's precisely what isn't happening. How is there is weighing when an organisation raids someones house using the police, confiscates property and for what? A small girl has tried ONCE to download something and then her father legally purchased it when he found out. Is that a balanced view? Of course not. The media industry etc. are the people who are showing NO balance and NO moral code. They are pursuing people for trivial violations with significant force and bully boy tactics. The courts are helping them and therefore often showing no balance either. Both these bodies are the ones taking a literal view of the law and not showing any balance or reasonable behaviour. They are the ones who cite preposterous losses against people.
"This isn't about breaking the law, as I said, the law is flexible and intelligent enough to discriminate between people's purposes."
So, you're suggesting that deliberately using someones copyright material with forethought (anti-piracy group) is OK, but going after the girl above for ONE violation is also OK? You're seriously having a laugh. All these incidents show beyond doubt that the law is not being flexibly and intelligently enough implemented for the majority of people.
"But consider the provisions, this isn't even an if, there is no case to answer."
As you like to say, citation please. WIthout one, this is a meaningless opinion. Can you show by legal precedent etc. there is no case to answer.....no. This is your opinion, currently based on nothing.
"We're not talking about protecting convicted criminals, we're talking about preventing very serious ongoing and utterly unjustified industrial sabotage, i.e. crime, on a massive scale. But the criminality isn't the problem, the consequences of it are the problem."
Serious and unjustified sabotage.....again please provide a citation. I think you'll find a significant proportion of the population don't believe it's unjustified against media companies at least. They've been allowed to run cartels (against the law) and artificially inflate prices for years without any action being taken against them. As to the impact on their businesses? All their figures are beyond stupid. They create figures out of thin air that have no basis in reality and then cite them as fact. Some artists are now even beginning to realise that putting their work on the internet can actually provide THEM with better earnings. They're beginning to realise the media companies are the ones taking all their money, not so much the pirates. This will just become more and more over time. The general population simply don't believe their grossly inflated figures. You'll note I'm not saying they aren't loosing money. I'm just saying that if they kept the figures they quote within the bounds of reason, people might have more sympathy for them. But, they don't and stomp around like jackbooted stormtroopers. They are loosing the popularity war with then pirates simply because people don't believe a word they say and consider many of their actions morally reprehensible. All they ever do is threaten people.
"But this isn't the law, you have no law or actual moral case on the side of your argument, otherwise you would have included even the slightest smidgen. In the event, all you could say was “oh it's not good to deprive criminals of justice”. If you accept they're criminals, presumably you accept they're also continuing themselves to commit crime, and calling for others to do so too, with hugely damaging economic and social consequences, on an ongoing basis through their activities. This is the real question at issue: how to stop them, and doing so is an important cause which will be weighed by a judge in the unlikely event he or she ever admits this “case” for hearing."
What utter rubbish. My moral case is rather than kicking down some small girls door and taking her laptop etc. for ONE violation, they could have sent a letter. The father would then have replied showing his purchase, explained what happened and apologise on behalf of his daughter after explaining what she did wrong. That's the reasonable and moral way to do things, but they choose to kick the door down, take the laptop and threaten stupid costs and losses. If the media industry and judges actually thought about things, they might try a different approach, which might have more success, because the current one isn't working!! But not, they simply threaten more and use more bully boy tactics. They have to realise that the law operates with the consent of the population (as do the police), not inspite of it. If the majority of the population don't agree with something, it won't go away, which is exactly what's happening here. If the law (and police) start operating without the consent of the population, you end up with little more than a banana republic.
"Or does that only apply when you're depriving artists of money due to them, rather than when you're using a version on an image used by people doing the depriving?"
Granted; I've been a bit loose in using the word crime. As you say, it's a civil matter and it's a civil matter regardless of who has broken the copyright of whom. Makes no difference. However, that's precisely what the anti-piracy groups don't seem to understand and get. Mind you, when you have bought and paid for some law, it's probably not unreasonable to think you can invoke it only when you choose to.
"My point is that if they launch legal action, it will require them to very much put names on pieces of paper as regards the ownership of TPB in a legally binding and transparent manner. Which might then later be used in court to pin TPB activities onto individuals in un-related cases. As can be seen from this quote: "CIAPC has not yet been contacted by Pirate Bay but we do hope that the site's operators come out publicly with their real identities and get in touch with us", the inference is that TPB's current legal owners are unknown."
Ah. Sorry, I misunderstood your meaning. I thought you meant 'ownership' in the sense of copyright rather than 'ownership' of TPB. I do agree and have commented as such in a later entry.
"I disagree. I think you credit 'the general public' with knowledge that is more specialised. An easy thing to do for one familiar with the details who works with other people familiar with the details, but remember that the average 'man on the street' has barely even heard of TPB. The man on the street will not have heard TPB's statement anywhere. That type of person makes up the majority of society and -like it or not- that type of person will take in only the following base fact, as reported briefly by mass media: "Piracy organisation are trying to sue some people for piracy".
And from that, they will snort "hypocrites!"
Like it or not, that's the way the public will see it, based on the soundbite they will hear."
I'm afraid you're undermining the case of the anti-piracy groups there. If the average 'man on the street' has barely heard of TPB, then how can they be costing the copyright owners so much money. They can only be costing that much money if the average man HAS heard of them and is using them. So, either the anti-piracy groups claims are without merit (in terms of magnitude of losses etc.), or the man on the street is very aware of TPB and understands the issues and therefore knows what TPB are doing and why. So, you're argument is either wrong, or you're implicity saying the anti-piracy groups have no case. Which do you choose?
@Psyx
I think you're missing the point. Whether they publically and formally acknowledge 'ownership' is not relevant to any action that may be taken against them, as the law acknowledges it. Therefore, they are actionable in the future regardless of the stance they take on this. If the law required the offender to acknowledge the crime before action could be taken against them, the law would be pretty useless.
Also, I don't think the general public (and in this case, they're the ones that matter) have any problem at all with the hypocracy. They understand TPB are doing this to show the stupidity of the anti-piracy camp, largely because TPB have publically stated this. So, in the general publics mind, I think there's one clear winner here. Something with anti-piracy campaign groups should take into account if they wish to get anywhere in the future.
g e
Yes, in this country the Labour Party would sue, but then, they are a legal entity. Is TPB a legal entity? Is there a company behind it? If so, whatever entity doing the suing would have to acknowledge those controlling it (company secretary etc.), so their names would come out. If they're not a legal entity, they can't sue. I don't know the answer to the above, but I think TPB is going much more for publicity than actually suing. Bringing the girl into this is a work of genius. TPB maybe amateurs (one assumes) at this, but they're showing big media companies and their public relations firms how to do public relations and advertising.
I do tend to agree and they're doing so very well.
What the copyright groups need to realise is that they require public support to make it work. Regardless of what laws they get implemented etc., if the public don't back them (at least in majority), it doesn't really matter. Rather than trying to hang every single offender, they need to show they can be reasonable. Then, maybe, the public will listen to their argument. At the moment, they appear to everyone to be a bunch of nasty bully boys going round beating everyone up, even small girls. Gives them so much respect!!
Bringing the girl into this is pure genius by TPB. The copyright groups should probably hire TPB as they seem to be far better at public opinion and marketing than they are!!
"The fact that they're aware of their hypocrisy does not excuse it."
Agreed. However, one side of the argument (the anti-piracy group) does not even acknowledge it is being hypocritical. At least TPB admit it publically and know it and completely own up to being hypocritical to make a point. They're not hiding it in the least. And very effective it is too. The anti-piracy group are being shown to only respect copyright when its THEIR copyright. Everyone else can go hang as far as they're concerned. Being hypocritical is fine when you're making a valid point (TPB are) and when you acknowledge it publically. It's a means to an end and people understand this.
"'Good cause' alteration of a logo of a non-commercial organisation (TPB), where there's no chance of confusion in the minds of consumers between the two orgs, and where the pro-copyright org is clearly fighting a bunch of thieves and vandals trying to destroy others' property rights for nothing other than the titillation of getting others' efforts for free, comes under many legal labels of "allowable"."
Ah yes. The you have to follow the law, but I don't sort of response. The you broke the law (allegedly) first, therefore I can break the law argument. All completely without merit and with much case law showing the argument is total b**locks. If the anti-piracy group has broken copyright (and we'll await the court case to find out), they're guilty. Whether the victims are convicted criminals or not is irrelevant. Even criminals are allowed the use the legal system against others. Terrible, but true. When you get into power, you can correct this gross injustice of criminals having access to the law.........................
Sounds like the interior minister is claiming the parents of Iceland are either incapable or don't want to control their childrens internet viewing habits, so the state has to do it instead. How long will it take to realise the kind of parents that allow their kids to watch this sort of stuff, are exactly the parents who aren't exactly role models either.
If you're a parent and care about your children, you either put in place suitable controls, or if not technical enough, learn or get someone else to do so. It's not rocket science. If you can't be bothered to do any of these, perhaps its the parent to blame?
If they create a job of 'Violent Pornography Censor', what about their health and safety. Might it not turn them into raging sexual deviants? Or, is this something that affects children only?
"And how is this *green* power going to be produced in enough quantity to power the additional requirement?"
That is indeed a big issue. During the last winter freezes (snow for a week etc.), wind generation was almost zero. Absolutely tiny. The reason is that cold freezes like this are associated with calm conditions over the UK. Do you really want all transport to stop because the windmills aren't turning?
"Errm - the article talks about topping up the battery as the buses roll. So those batteries could have been charged overnight while the buses are garaged."
Agreed you can take the first charge overnight, but it must be drawing a considerable amount during peak day to make it worthwhile. If it could last all day on batteries, you wouldn't need any of this. So, the problem still exists. It's drawing a considerable amount of extra power during peak day usage and therefore increasing the differential between high and low usage on the network. This is exactly what they're trying to remove. That's part of the reason for Smart metering. Give everyone time of day tarrifs to persuade them to take electricity during the cheaper (and therefore relatively low usage times) on the network.
Unfortunately, this won't work in the UK. Firstly, the cost would be simply horrific. Secondly, electric cars are only commercially viable against fossil fuel cars (on a cost per mile not including infrastructure basis) because they charge predominantly using off-peak electricity. If they charge as they're being driven, it would be predominantly peak eletricity, which would be something like 3-4 times as expensive (depends on whether you include connection charges etc.). So, whilst it makes electric cars actually work and viable in more circumstances, it actually makes them financially far less viable due to 'fuel' cost.
Sad, but true. The big issue we have in this country (and most countries around the world), is we have plenty of spare electricity overnight (and generating capacity etc.) and we need to time shift it to even the load out. So, some form of storage (whether battery, hydrogen or whatever) is pretty much a requirement.
"Gosh, I'd believe you, only anyone who did actually enquire about Superdome would know they didn't come with the first generation Itanium, Merced, they either came with PA8600 or later PA-RISC CPUs or Itanium 2 CPUs. The "development" systems hp largely gave away were the rx9610 IIRC."
All I can tell you is what I was told. They were referred to as Superdomes by the salesmen. As I don't care what a server is called, but what it does, I took them at their word. If you look up the rx9610 servers you've referred to, you will note they are described as being 'Superdome like' and 'call board based like Superdomes' etc. I guess that's close enough for a HP salesman. Anyway, our interest in them waned significantly when we realised just how poorly they performed, so we didn't get as far as talking about specific servers etc. When HP later came back with Superdomes containing Itanium 2's, we also looked at performance and whilst significantly better than the first offering, it still sucked compared to the competing chips. So, again, no dice.
"SGI actually bought the MIPS design and formed a compnay called MIPS Technologies, just so they were assured of the longterm longevity of their systems. IIRC they did so for eighteen to twenty years. They expressly ended their MIPS range to build Itanium servers:
http://www.osnews.com/story/15741/SGI_To_Drop_MIPS_Irix_Moves_to_Itanium_Linux/
Evidently the news didn't reach the troll kindergarten. Yet again.
I would suggest that you take time to learn something before your next foray, such as maybe spending a few years actually working in the industry."
MIPS was not killed off for one simple reason that may have escaped your attention. It still exists. Different role maybe, but the technology is still there and being developed for other purposes, so it did not die. Yes, SGI moved to Itanium. So what. That didn't kill MIPS. I've added a reference to the MIPS wikipedia page that shows the development continuing till ........ 2012. Good for a dead chip. Also, a supercomputer was built in 2007!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIPS_architecture
So, one company chose Itanium over MIPS, but other carried on with MIPS. It certainly didn't kill it. I also notice you've avoided answering my reply about Rocks.
I really do wish The Register would add an icon not just for 'fail', but 'epic fail' or 'tripe' as it would more accurately represent your reply quality.
I'll give you the challenge again. Name one chip that was actually killed off by Itanium as per your previous comments. Rock wasn't. That was killed by Suns incompetence and the advances of all other chip makers (so maybe an assist might be in order). As I've demonstrated above, MIPS wasn't. I might give you Alpha as stated by another poster. It was killed by Compaq in favour of Itanium. PA-RISC. Well, that was owned by HP, so that's a bit of a cheat really, as they simply didn't want to develop more than one chip. So, name another? Finding it hard? The reality is that Itanium was simply not a great game changer and didn't have anything like the impact predicted/hoped on the industry.
"Yes. That's exactly how hp sold it, so that early adopters could start on software. Some companies actually bought the first gen servers and used them in production anyway as they had the best floating integer performance going at the time, but otherwise they were slower than the PA-RISC chips of the day. HP sold the Merced boxes cheap to get ISVs on board so they could brag about 1500 Itanium-ready applications come the Itanium2 launch."
Strangely enough, I spoke with many a HP salesman from their BCS group at the time and investigated buying a Superdome. None of them ever told me it was a 'development' chip just to get ISVs interested. Wouldn't be HP FUD would it? And you go on about IBM FUD!! HP salesmen (and women) never once said to me it was development or anything other than a full offering. Your comment is absolute tripe.
"Apart from Rock, the last and stillborn UltraSPARC variant, did news reach the troll kindergarten of a range of chips called MIPS?"
You're just picking on any chip that didn't make it through that time and claiming Itanium killed it off!! You could just as easily claim Power or Xeon killed it off. In reality, what killed Rock was Sun. It had nothing to do with other chips. As for MIPS. To a degree maybe as I've acknowledged before. However, it has survived in one form of another and again, you could also blame every other chip around at the time for 'killing it'.
"Apart from hp-ux and OpenVMS? Well, there's the question of what Huawei are going to run on their Itanium servers, but it's probably going to be a Red Flag Asianux Server variant, which already supports Itanium: http://www.redflag-linux.com/en/product_end.php?class1=10&class2=1&productid=1"
"And whilst you state no RHEL or Windows support, I can still run the supported versions. Should I get bored, I can even load up a fully-supported latest version of Debian: http://cdimage.debian.org/debian-cd/6.0.6/ia64/iso-cd/"
"Or even Gentoo: http://distfiles.gentoo.org/releases/ia64/autobuilds/current-iso/"
Oh yes. All those so well known enterprise class business operating systems!!!!
You really make me laugh. You stayed away initially, but couldn't help yourself could you!!
You could possibly argue whether Itanium killed off MIPS. Maybe the other vendors had something to do with it as well. However, Itanium only killed off Alpha because they were both owned by HP. Would have been interested to see who would have prefered to stay on a developed Alpha and who would have prefered to jump to Itanium. From the people I know, most would have stayed on Alpha. Almost nobody in Alpha or PA-RISC was "happy" to move.
HP wanted to support only one processor into the future and chose Itanium. Many people would question the wisdom of this.
"hitting the end of the RISC development capability"
Yeah. After all, there are no RISC based processors around anymore. Oh, hang on, there are. I'm quite sure Alpha could have continued, but like all the processors that were supposedly heading towards a wall, which was then avoided.
Maybe. On the other hand, as Intel seem to have confirmed Itanium is dead, certainly after 2017, is he really worried. So, it cost him a few hundred million. Chicken feed. He would have to spend that money over the next few years contining to port the code onto Itanium, so little loss there. Presumably, he also hopes to pickup a certain amount of the hardware business as well. In the meantime, whether by telling the truth or not (individuals personal viewpoint), he has pretty effectively killed off the Itanium (whether it was dying or not beforehand).
It'd take a pretty brave soul to implement something from Oracle on Integrity now.
"Hp developed the first Merced generation of Itanium. They realised early on in development that the platform was great for porting, and decided that if they could persuade other partners to pick it up then they could maximise their return on investment, so they approached Intel (not the other way round)."
If you say so. Personally, I don't know how it went. However, as HP are having to pay Intel to keep the chip going, I guess Intel are happy with the arrangement. Not sure HP are as much though.
"The delays in getting the first Itanium design out, Merced, a development version, was an hp issue, not an Intel one. Intel then took on the major role in developing Itanium2."
Sorry? You're claiming that HP were selling a development version of the chip? Wasn't even a production version? I bet people who purchased servers with Merced in it are happy to hear that.
"Hmmmm, hp gained a production and development partner with massive scale, they gained a chip that allowed them to continue making enterprise UNIX servers, plus easily migrate Compaq's old enterprise customers, plus it killed off many of their competitors. Yeah, disaster - NOT!"
In general, the only chips it killed off were their own!! Is Sparc still there? Yes. Is Power still there? Yes. Is x86 still there? Yes. So, what exactly did Itanium kill off?
Whilst I'm not saying the last post was correct, you should not the following.
"Could be. But I'm sure you are aware, the 795 has a limit of 1000 logical partitions?"
IBM have just lowered the minimum processor entitlement per VP to 0.05. This would theoretically allow 20 partitions per processor (max 20 x 256), although officially they've left the number at 1000. I have to admit though, that anyone attempting to run that many partitions will hit lots of inefficiencies as no virtualisation technology could give that kind of consolidation ratio per core.
"IBM p795 has a maximum of 32 CPUs."
32 CPUs yes. However, that's 256 cores and therefore 256 processors in IBM speak. The 0.05 entitlement per VP is efvectively per processors, hence the 256*20. But yes, the limit is officially still 1000.
Sorry Matt, but I couldn't help but respond. Perhaps you could enlighten us with how many of those operating systems are left with? You know, with Itanium versions in the future?
RedHat linux? No.
Windows? No.
So, the only operating systems that can run on Itanium in the future are HP ones...............
Doesn't matter what was intended, just what's happened.
"I always get a good laugh when the mainframers try spinning their lack of choice as some sort of advantage! Like no ISV ever works closely with any other OS provider - what claptrap!"
If you look at the marketplace at the moment, you'll notice a fair chunk of people being willing to pay the extra money and tolerate the lack of choice for products that just work. It's called Apple. And pretty damned successful and rich they're becoming out of it. End users are simply fed up with Windows failing all over the place. They don't want to know how to run it, create builds etc.etc. They just want a device that works and Apple is giving them this. And they're willing to pay extra for it, including lack of choice. So, this is a valid choice and a valid marketing and business strategy.
"There's two reasons for that - firstly, I simply worry that you're so old you will join the other dinosaurs in extinction before the bet is decided; and secondly, I try to avoid the mentally-impaired and deluded."
I take it that's a no then. Obviously, you don't have any faith in your own comments!!
P.S.
Exadata runs Oracle DB in just same way Integrity does. Calling it an appliance (of as I said earlier, 'Engineered system', which is what Oracle actually call it) is simply a marketing stunt.
"So you have to admit that the problem y claimed only happened on x64 actually occurs in the mainframe world. So nice to see you admitting yr own arguments are unadulterated male bovine manure. Shame you then go on for several ranting paragraphs trying to deny what you just admitted. The reason they a "far less" on mainframe is there are far less mainframes running far less applications from far less ISVs than x64."
I think you'll find it wasn't me that said anything about this problem initially and I have never said it doesn't occur on mainframe. Perhaps you should reread the thread like you failed to do last time and I had to point out.
"Zero. It's called testing, in some cases over a six month schedule. Try it some time. Well, if you get a chance before you get retired."
That noise you're hearing is the sound of every IT professional laughing at you for such a silly comment.
"The simple fact that mainframes are being ripped out and replaced by x64 systems all over the World primarily on the basis of COST-SAVINGS exposes that complete fantasy. Mainframe is not Apple. And Apple is also MORE EXPENSIVE, as shown by their complete failure to gain any desktop share compared to Wintel. As I said earlier, you are not equipped for this debate, you simply don't have the knowledge."
As I said before, different hardware is better for different scenarios. Sometimes x86 is cheaper, sometimes not. And by the way, Apple does have a desktop market and a reasonable one. In certain sectors (you see, horses for courses again), like say design, Apply own them, not x86. Also, they pretty much own the tablet marketplace with Android much to Microsofts (and presumably your) disgust. And, as for phones. Don't even get me started there, much like Microsoft has never got started either!!
"Did I say I never get any failures? But I have heard of mainframe hardware failures taking down a complete mainframe, something you dinosaurs insist can never happen."
Now you can't even read the same post correctly!! Look two paragraphs up and you'll see you have said you get zero failures!!
"Sorry, but I'm just having a very hard time believing someone that knows so little outside the mainframe bubble - well, going by your posts, NOTHING outside the mainframe bubble - is employed at all! I assume the company decided it was cheaper to keep you on until retirement rather than make you redundant when they replaced your mainframe with something relevant."
Abuse as usual for no answer. I was actually doing mainframe work, when a company recruited me for Unix work, which at the time, I didn't know a lot about. Fortunately, they realise that some people learn very quickly and I've now been doing it for them for some time.
"I suppose the news probably didn't filter through to the alternate reality of mainframers, but hp and Oracle signed a co-development agreement years ago before the Sun purchase. If you go to the Oracle site at Reading in the UK you can see the ETC building which hp funded and equipped with hp systems for hp and Oracle to use for joint POCs, etc. I know because I was one of the customers that made use of the facility. Prior to that, Oracle did all their development on Sun Slowaris, meaning that new versions of products like Oracle DB were released first on Slowaris, then developed for hp-ux. The co-development agreement meant Oracle was tied to releasing versions of products on Slowaris and hp-ux at the same time. The "business as usual" contract ties Oracle to the same concurrent release schedules for all products currently available on hp-ux for Itanium. Oh, and IBM had no such agreement with Oracle, another advantage of hp-ux."
For many years, the primary development platform for Oracle has been Oracle Linux, not Solaris. As you're so knowledgeable, could you tell me when that agreement runs to? Think you might find that agreements tend to have an end date and aren't valid after that.
"Exadata is an APPLIANCE you fool, not just a version of the Oracle DB! You mentioned it because you have no other argument worth a damn and know nothing other than mainframe. Seriously, give up, you're just making a complete idiot of yourself. We really need a "I pity the fool" icon for posters like you."
I believe the phrase Oracle would use is 'engineered system', but then you'd know that if you spoke with them. Yes, they like to call it that, but it's really a bunch of x86 servers with a special version of Oracle DB. So, yet again, you're dodging my point with abuse because you have no answer.
"You can argue your mainframe sales pitch until you're blue in the face, it matters little as mainframe is a declining market and the only one you're fooling with your dribbling is yourself. Enjoy!"
And yet, you still refuse to take my bet that mainframe will be around long after the Itanium has gone the way of the dodo. You really don't believe what you spout do you!!
So, no answer and simply more abuse to hide it. Never mind.....
For your information, most people know AS/400s and System 3/x are not 'baby mainframes'. They have far more in common with Unix systems than mainframes. That's probably why they use Power processors and p-Series hardware now!!
I notice you haven't taken up my bet yet on whether mainframe or Itanium will die out first................
Are you going to provide the links for Exadata only features appearing on any other version of Oracle DB for another platform......................
I'm sure the silence will be deafening, as you'll loose on both!!
I've chosen Paris because she's a clueless, brainless person who can't survive without people around her to help. Reminds me of someone..........
"The problem is reading about modern x64 is the only reference point you have, you simply have no experience outside the mainframe bubble. Even then, you're trying to deny many of the problems you mentioned don't exist for mainframe. Application dependency conflicts happen on mainframe as well, or are you gong to pretend only IBM writes all mainframe software and has complete and total control? Complete male bovine manure. True, the number of mainframe-only ISVs is declining all the time."
I wouldn't deny that some dependency conflicts don't occur, but generally they are far less. This is because the various layers of the code stack are far more separated and standardised on the mainframe. Yes, it happens, but nowhere near as much as other platforms, including Unix.
"As for you not being able to apply a patchset to a mix of systems, that is why we have standard builds. They have been around for a very long time (I can remember being paid to write and test them in the Eighties!), so long I'd have thought even mainframers would have heard about them by now, but evidently not."
Yep. And mainframes have had standard builds for decades beyond Windows. Where do you reckon the idea came from!! The issue is normally around the number of standard builds you need. For Windows, you need different ones for all the types of servers/desktops you have. In mainframe you normally have.....one!! Granted, there's been a lot of work done recently to reduce the number of builds required, but maybe you'd like to enlighten us on how many Windows builds your current estate has? As I said, mainframe should only have one (or maybe two during O/S version upgrades.....old and new), so any advance on that is additional overhead!!
"See, this is where you just show how little you know. After I have tested my patch set, I can set profiles for my servers and deploy to schedules, then it really is one click to ensure that the session gets run in such a manner that the business does not see any outages. Forget x64, I've been able to do that on UNIX for years! Where the fudge have you been keeping? Seriously, ask Ginni Rometty to swallow some manuals so you guys can catch up on the reading you've missed in the last twenty years."
Yep; great theory. A majority will work without issue. However, there is always a failure rate. So, what's your failure rate? And don't say zero, that's just being silly. For Windows servers and desktops this is. And why are you suddenly mentioning Unix here. The whole thread before this was talking about patching Windows servers, not Unix. I would be the last person to say HP-UX didn't have a decent patching mechanism and regime, just like other Unix O/Ss.
P.S.
The patch issue on Windows isn't so much an issue with Windows, but the vast array of slightly different hardware it can run on. The secret to removing the patch issue is not so much running good software to do it for you, but to limit the hardware differences. The same applies to Linux on x86 to a great extent as well. It's no secret that controlling the hardware stack is the key. That's why Apple software is so much more stable and easier to upgrade and more stable than Windows. They have complete control over the hardware stack and can dictate. Either way you pay the price; in purchase price or maintenance costs.
P.P.S.
If you say you don't get any failures, people will just laugh at you. I remember when working at a major bank, the desktop patch failure rate was about 2% for cleaners taking the plugs out of sockets for the desktops to plug in their vacuum cleaners!! No amount of education ever got around it!! You don't normally get that issue with Unix or mainframes!!
"Point? You don't have a point, all you have is an irrational hatred of Itanium, probably based on fear because it is a UNIX platform and therefore one of the ones gutting yout precious mainframe bizz!"
Mmmm. Not following the thread again. If you read backwards, you'll find that I said I USED TO WORK on mainframe, but I now WORK ON UNIX systems. So, far from being fearful, I'd probably like it to do better!! I have some residual responsibility for mainframe, but the vast majority of my work is on Unix. So, try reading backwards and following the thread rather than making your own entries up.
"And you didn't bother to actually go read any of the background on the Oracle-hp agreement, even when I pointed out in a previous post that there is already an existing agreement, re-inforced by the "business as usual" contract, that ties Oracle to producing new features and software versions of their products now on Itanium at the same time as they do for other OS such as Slowaris. In essence, the only way Oracle can stop adding features to those software lines is to stop making those products lines - such as Oracle DB, RAC, Application Server - for ALL other OS, including mainframe (for which they already do not make many of the software they sell on Itanium) and AIX. Larry would have to commit business suicide spite hp, otherwise hp will simply drag him back into court and extract more cash every time he dicks around. You really need to try and get yourself out of the mainframe bubble so you can actually see what is happening in the real world, maybe a Zimmerframe would help?"
Afraid you're reading the agreements etc. wrong. Business as usual doesn't mean anything of this sort and doesn't tie Oracle to any such thing. If it did, how come the two Exadata only features (which were both available before the HP/Oracle spat) aren't available on the Itanium version or indeed, any other version? Because your interpretation above is wholesale wrong. BAU has never and will never mean being able to insist on all features in all versions. If you really want to prove your point, perhaps you could point me at an article that tells me when Hybrid Columnar Compression and Smart Flash Cache are going to be made available on any platform apart from Exadata. You MAY possibly find it for Sparc, but certainly nothing else. And that's only because an Exadata equivalent is/has (not sure of the exact date) being launched that uses Sparc for the database nodes at least. Storage nodes stay as x86 I believe.
I do hope you're not trying to persuade your management you haven't made an epic fail as you'll be looking for a new job soon..........that's if you currently have one!!
"It really is like dealing with the mentally-deficient! Does your mommie know you're using the Internet? Exadata is NOT an Itanium product, it is a bundle of Oracle software based on some applications that are available on Itanium, rolled up with some specific software, tuned for a specific hardware stack. It is not covered by the hp agreement as it is not a product offered by Oracle for any Itanium server, hp or otherwise (or for mainframe or AIX for that matter). You introduced it into the conversation because you wanted to pretend it affects this hp-Oracle software judgement when it is a completely different product line. Please go get a clue, maybe talk your boss into buying you one of your own, as you appear to be time-sharing what little intellect you have with a lot of other IBM trolls."
You really have trouble keeping a thead going in your mind. Please show me where I ever said it was based on Itanium, because I never have. The reason I mentioned it was because you insisted that all versions of say Oracle DB have to have the same functions etc.etc. and I said that wasn't true citing the Exadata only functions as an example. They are unique to the Exadata. Again, you simply insult when everyone following this thread can see you aren't even following the thread correctly.
I do hope Matt Bryant isn't your real name, as if you work in IT, you're pretty much unemployable by now. If it isn't, but there is someone in IT called Matt Byant, he'd better speak up now otherwise he'll be unfairly tarnished.
"Most companies with mainframes do not have massive implimentations, they have one or two legacy apps still on mainframe, doing things like the warehouse and stock management, whilst the Windows teams are doing not only the desktop but also email, departmental applications, VMware farms, security, etc., etc."
Now who's not been about much? Go and actually look at some mainframe sites and learn the truth. The vast majority of mainframe MIPs sold today are not even for z/OS. It is for Linux on z/IFLs. Indeed. there is a hosting company in Sweden that purchased a mainframe for hosting thousands of Linux servers. It was actually a HOSTING company!! Now, I'm not going to deny that mainframes aren't used for hosting Windows, but that's largely because Windows is so poorly dispatched, it can't displatch properly on processors.
Haven't looked recently, but have VMWare solved the asynchronous processor dispatch issue that results in huge amounts of seemingly used processor actually being wasted? I doubt if you even know what this is!! After all, if you can't dispatch a virtual machines processors asynchronously and have to dispatch them all synchronously, you'll have processors waiting around or short processors everywhere. In the latest missive I've got from VMWare, synchronous dispatch is sold as a benefit!! Yeah....right. Mainframe solved being able to asynchronously dispatch processors nearly 20 years ago!!
"And when you want to compare the two IT teams, you should also look at the management layer above - whilst the mainframe dinosaurs are stuck going nowhere it is usually the Windows guys that get promoted up through the IT management layer to the CIO roles.
House Rules"
I wouldn't deny that more managers are from a Windows background, but that's partly because there are more of them. Also, that doesn't mean it's a better management team. In a lot of sites I've been to or worked at, the management have been heavily Windows based, but when shown how much a decent mainframe or Unix implementation could save them, have rather changed tunes. That's not to say Windows isn't right for some things, it is. It's just that different platforms have different advantages for different applications. Horses for courses; no one correct. And yes, even the mainframe has some apps it is best for. Just look at the major banks and see how many run their critical applications there and that's not because they're legacy. I know of several that have within the last 10 years completely rewritten their banking systems to run there.
"".....You were the one who brought up mainframe." Actually that was kicked off by Destroyed All Braincells's mention of AS/400 at 0011GMT Feb 3rd. What is really funny is you didn't even have to go learn about something outside your mainframe bubble to see that, all you had to do was scroll through the thread!
House Rules"
"Re: Re: Destroyed All Braincell's rant
"P.S. I think AS/400 looks far better than anything HP could come up with ever." Really? So how come mainframe is a shrinking market, having been comprehensively gutted from below by UNIX over the last twenty years? Even IBM admit is a declining market."
Ha, ha, ha. This is really funny. If you sorted the replies to this thread from oldest to newest and then searched for the word mainframe, you will note that the first person to mention the mainframe was actually YOU. It was in one of your posts. Yes, it might have been in response to a comment about AS/400, but it was YOU who referred to mainframe. Nobody else. I've posted both your latest stupid posting and the one in which you mention the mainframe. Your insults to AC now show that all YOU had to do was read the thread correctly and you would have seen that it was YOU. Now that really is funny. You can't even sort the replies into date order!!! Ha, ha, ha. Feeling stupid? You really ought to!!
A truly EPIC FAIL.
"Actually, they will have to do what the contract says, i.e. provide versions of the Oracle software for Itanium in a timely manner. Any deviation from this means they get dragged back to court. This is what hp wanted, this is what us customers wanted, so hp and us customers won, and you IBM trolls just can't stomach that."
Yes, but if you bothered reading and UNDERSTANDING my point, there is no requirement for the Itanium to have anything beyond the features it has today and nothing to stop them leaving the Itanium version standing. I've just shown in another reply that Exadata has unique features which means they can quite happily have different versions with different feature sets. So, all they need to do, is create a new version (i.e. increment the number), make a couple of changes (not the same as every other version) and carry on support. Fine. But, very soon, the version of Oracle will be a long way behind everyone elses. At that point, the quality of the hardware becomes irrelevant.
Would you really force someone to maintain your car under pain of a court settlement and then wonder why they do the bare minimum rather than a quality job?
"There was no specialist "accelerators" in Exadata, it was originally built around bog-standard hp Proliants because hp designed the hardware for the stack for Oracle. You are again confusing hardware configuration of standard items such as flash with some "superspecial" fantasy hardware. This is not unusual amongst mainframers, they all seem to think that IBM use ground-up unicorn horn in their kit alone, and refuse to believe it is the same tech as the rest of the industry just assembled in a different way and with a different software stack. The sad bit is you accept the unicorn horn myth and pay out so much for mainframe because you don't know any better."
Again, missing the point. I never said there were specialist accelerators in Exadata. I said Exadata has certain 'functions' available nowhere else. If you bother to read the manuals on anything other than Integrity, you would know that 'Smart Flash Cache' and 'Hybrid Columnar Compression' are available only on the Exadata. Yes, it's not hardware assisted, but a function unique to one platform, somthing you said they couldn't do. To quote you, you said whatever features existed on another platform had to appear on Itanium and I've just proven you completely wrong.
Your other points. Just simple abuse again. You seem to think abusing people is a substitute for facts and logical argument...........
"".....First, you can manage an incredibly large mainframe environment with a handful of people, thousands of virtual servers. It would take a hundred people to do the admin for that workload on Windows... just to handle Patch Tuesday. ...." Oh dear, once again all you are doing is exposing your lack of experience and knowledge outside the mainframe bubble. Patch management has been automated for years, large corporations regularly patch thousands of systems with a few clicks of a mouse. Tools for managing very large Wintel/Lintel farms have been around for donkey's years, I would suggest you go read up on VMware for a start, but that would only be a start as your knowledge is so obviously twenty years out-of-date. As an opener, all your reply did was ensure that the rest of your post should be ignored do to your colossal ignorance."
Matt. Rather than spout off, just go into any site and look at the mainframe v Windows support people and the size of the estate they support. Yes, patching etc. has been automated for years (when it works), but you'll still see the Windows support teams are huge in size compared to the mainframe teams. You can argue what they do, but the size difference is obvious. Which is the most cost-effective model is questionable though, as the larger number of Windows people are, individually, far cheaper. So, total costs needs to be looked at. But, from a count of people, AC is absolutely right.
@AC.
The funny thing is, the court judgement doesn't actually help HP in the slightest. Whilst Oracle may be forced to support Itanium for longer, nobody wants to go with a company being forced to do something. Firstly, Oracle will do the minimum necessary. This means support for Itanium will come bottom of the pile. Secondly, Oracle will do everything it can to stop supporting Itanium or make it a non-starter for companies. Do you really want to be with a software vendor who doesn't want to support your hardware? The most costly and hardest bit to change is software, so get to another hardware supplier. At best, HP has bought a bit of time. If I was them, I'd be porting HP-UX to Xeon as fast as possible and start making Superdomes etc. out of Xeons. This would have all sorts of advantages to them, not least price. Unfortunately, after doing over their Tru64 and VMS customers in the past and the debacle over RISC and Alpha etc., customers aren't going to like another forced platform change again.
So, rather than answer my point, you simply name call again. Very mature.
Yes, to a point you're correct. Adding cache to a processor is a sort of accelerator. However, what the guy was referring to is specialist execution units and instructions for Oracle software. These would not be available anywhere else and never would be. It was how they are going to persuade people Oracle hardware is the place to go. Very closed shop, but not the first to do it. So, there will be features (as there are currently in Exadata, a point I notice you ignored) that will never be available on Itanium (or other platforms for that matter). So, do enough of this and whether support exists for Itanium or not, it isn't price competitive. There is absolutely no requirement for Oracle to introduce any new features (or old features not available in the Itanium version at the time of the judgement) into the software. It's quite common for companies to have different versions of software for different platforms with feature differences. Nobody has ever suggested that what comes in one must come in the other, not even this judge.
So, rather than cherry pick the points you would like to respond to, why not respond to them all, including the harder ones. It'll give your brain a work out.
P.S.
If I needed a real techie, I wouldn't be talking to you. I've written operating system code for over 20 years. Yeah, deep down stuff as well, right in the nucleus of MVS (or z/OS if you would prefer). I now do Unix stuff. None of this was for IBM, all for FTSE 100 companies.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
