On 2008-05-08, Cydrome Leader <presence@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote:
> In comp.unix.aix chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> joel garry wrote:
>>
>>>I've come to the opinion that linux as sold/supported is a toy OS
>>>running on toy hardware,
>>
>> Yeah, that's why countless corporations and research organizations use
>> and depend on it. Tell google that Linux is a "toy OS".
>
> google does run toy hardware. I've seen more than enough of it at
> datacenters.

In that case, all I can say is that most corporations desperately
need to make trip to the toy store.


--
Christopher Mattern

NOTICE
Thank you for noticing this new notice
Your noticing it has been noted
And will be reported to the authorities

On May 8, 6:00*pm, joel garry <joel-ga...@home.com> wrote:

snip

> But still, I'm not the only one who was excited about it and then
> disillusioned as it bloated, I'm not the only one who thinks Intel
> hardware sucks, and I'm not the only one who thinks there should be a
> fork specifically for db needs. *Do you not think these are legitimate
> advocacy issues?

I think I should consider changing my name from hpuxrac to
oracle_on_intel.

We are in the midst of a swapout of running oracle on hpux over to 5.1
OEL running on intel xeon quad core.

Ran a whole bunch of custom testing on different hardware ranging from
Sun's latest 8 core systems over to AMD and Itanium and Intel. Well
the intel quad core performance 64 bit running OEL 5.1 is pretty
remarkable.

Do you have something specific to backup the "Intel hardware sucks"
line?

On May 9, 6:04 pm, hpuxrac <johnbhur...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On May 8, 6:00 pm, joel garry <joel-ga...@home.com> wrote:
>
> snip
>
> > But still, I'm not the only one who was excited about it and then
> > disillusioned as it bloated, I'm not the only one who thinks Intel
> > hardware sucks, and I'm not the only one who thinks there should be a
> > fork specifically for db needs. Do you not think these are legitimate
> > advocacy issues?
>
> I think I should consider changing my name from hpuxrac to
> oracle_on_intel.
>
> We are in the midst of a swapout of running oracle on hpux over to 5.1
> OEL running on intel xeon quad core.
>
> Ran a whole bunch of custom testing on different hardware ranging from
> Sun's latest 8 core systems over to AMD and Itanium and Intel. Well
> the intel quad core performance 64 bit running OEL 5.1 is pretty
> remarkable.
>

> Do you have something specific to backup the "Intel hardware sucks" line?

I am pretty sure he must be referring to x86. His arguments sound like
coming from the old RISC vs. CISC dichotomy era, which is long gone.

-Ramon

On May 9, 7:14*pm, Ramon F Herrera <ra...@conexus.net> wrote:

snip

> > > But still, I'm not the only one who was excited about it and then
> > > disillusioned as it bloated, I'm not the only one who thinks Intel
> > > hardware sucks, and I'm not the only one who thinks there should be a
> > > fork specifically for db needs. *Do you not think these are legitimate
> > > advocacy issues?

snip

> > Do you have something specific to backup the "Intel hardware sucks" line?
>
> I am pretty sure he must be referring to x86. His arguments sound like
> coming from the old RISC vs. CISC dichotomy era, which is long gone.

Hard to guess when Joel makes such a broad statement. ... he seems to
be combining some thought about the size of the linux kernel and
ancillary software getting larger combined with a shot against intel.

I did my best at my place to keep amd in the race but at the time of
the purchase decision they just weren't a factor at that time. Things
change and continue to change ... unless one gives a specific set of
benchmark results at a point in time this just sounds "not so
relevant" imho.

On May 9, 5:40*pm, hpuxrac <johnbhur...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On May 9, 7:14*pm, Ramon F Herrera <ra...@conexus.net> wrote:
>
> snip
>
> > > > But still, I'm not the only one who was excited about it and then
> > > > disillusioned as it bloated, I'm not the only one who thinks Intel
> > > > hardware sucks, and I'm not the only one who thinks there should be a
> > > > fork specifically for db needs. *Do you not think these are legitimate
> > > > advocacy issues?
>
> snip
>
> > > Do you have something specific to backup the "Intel hardware sucks" line?
>
> > I am pretty sure he must be referring to x86. His arguments sound like
> > coming from the old RISC vs. CISC dichotomy era, which is long gone.
>
> Hard to guess when Joel makes such a broad statement. ... he seems to
> be combining some thought about the size of the linux kernel and
> ancillary software getting larger combined with a shot against intel.

Pretty accurate.

>
> I did my best at my place to keep amd in the race but at the time of
> the purchase decision they just weren't a factor at that time. *Things
> change and continue to change ... unless one gives a specific set of
> benchmark results at a point in time this just sounds "not so
> relevant" imho.

Ramon got it right. It's not long gone for me, as I'm currently
transitioning from risc to Itanium on hp-ux (not my decision, and the
only testing is management half-listening to salespeople then doing
what is cheapest. They are going heavily into Xeon for the non-Oracle
stuff, and using vmware to run multiple XP clients on mission critical
operations. Random lockups, "unable to load profile" and some bizarro
registry issues are the result.). I do respect your actual testing,
though, and secretly hope I'm wrong.

jg
--
@home.com is bogus.
That darn Moscone center: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/t...encevirus.html

On May 8, 3:23*pm, "The Boss" <use...@No.Spam.Please.invalid> wrote:
> joel garry wrote:
> > On May 8, 1:40 pm, Ivan Marsh <ivanma...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 08 May 2008 13:34:30 -0700, joel garry wrote:
> >>> On May 8, 10:07 am, chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> >>>> joel garry wrote:
> >>>>> I've come to the opinion that linux as sold/supported is a toy OS
> >>>>> running on toy hardware,
>
> >>>> Yeah, that's why countless corporations and research organizations
> >>>> use and depend on it. Tell google that Linux is a "toy OS".
>
> >>>> Idiot.
>
> >>> A decade ago I was very pro-linux in cola.).
>
> >> That explains more than anyone ever need know.
>
> > :-)
>
> > But still, I'm not the only one who was excited about it and then
> > disillusioned as it bloated, I'm not the only one who thinks Intel
> > hardware sucks, and I'm not the only one who thinks there should be a
> > fork specifically for db needs. *Do you not think these are legitimate
> > advocacy issues?
>
> No one is forcing you to use Intel hardware to run Linux ...
>

I can either work on what is given, or not. The person who makes
those decisions has certain constraints. Oddly enough, he asked me
whether he should use suse or redhat for a telephony app not long
after I posted in this thread last week. He had some disks from about
5 years ago... I would like to encourage him to go in the direction of
linux, actually, but that might be an indicator of how long it takes
for me to say something and for it to become his idea...

jg
--
@home.com is bogus.
Never use an online handle that will make you look obsolete when the
technology moves on.