Re: Oracle chief architect says there ought to be one Linux - Linux

This is a discussion on Re: Oracle chief architect says there ought to be one Linux - Linux ; On May 8, 2:26*pm, The Ghost In The Machine wrote: > In comp.os.linux.advocacy, joel garry > > *wrote > on Thu, 8 May 2008 13:34:30 -0700 (PDT) > : > > > On May 8, 10:07*am, chrisv wrote: > >> ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 39 of 39

Thread: Re: Oracle chief architect says there ought to be one Linux

  1. Re: Oracle chief architect says there ought to be one Linux

    On May 8, 2:26*pm, The Ghost In The Machine
    wrote:
    > In comp.os.linux.advocacy, joel garry
    >
    > *wrote
    > on Thu, 8 May 2008 13:34:30 -0700 (PDT)
    > <93714048-dfc9-4b1d-b2d3-c82974a31...@j33g2000pri.googlegroups.com>:
    >
    > > On May 8, 10:07*am, chrisv 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.

    >
    > > Well, I may be an idiot, but what does it say that even more
    > > corporations use Windows? (Too avoid confusion: I'm biased against
    > > Windows and for unix. *A decade ago I was very pro-linux in cola.).
    > > It says that countless corporations are wrong, to me.

    >
    > Define "wrong". *Both solutions work, with a cost.
    > That cost has multiple units:
    >
    > [1] initial licensing/monetary outlay for OS and apps relevant to
    > * * the initial problem
    > [2] reliability/downtime
    > [3] IT support staff effort (man-days per machine per year, perhaps)
    > [4] IT training costs (including procedure development)
    > [5] staff training costs
    > [6] additional hardware and software not related to [1] in order
    > * * to keep the entire system running/responsive/virus-free/sane
    > [7] palatability to upper management; for example, they might not
    > * * even look at [non-]Microsoft or [non-]Oracle solutions, terminating
    > * * any proposals outside of their worldview with not quite extreme
    > * * prejudice.


    Very well said. I'm using "wrong" here in the sense that management
    decisions vary from some objective truth. If many organizations have
    a high variance, they may quite well all be wrong. It is also
    possible for technically wrong decisions (ie, choosing an inferior
    operating system and/or database with a semi-bogus app, that can still
    be made to work in the business) to be managerially correct, I'm sure
    we've all seen versions of that, whether or not we want to admit it.

    >
    > > Success in the
    > > marketplace does not mean technical superiority, and often means the
    > > converse.

    >
    > > We all ought to know the history - some smart guy wanted to know how
    > > 386's worked. *Getting from there to a professional OS? *I say it is
    > > arguable. *Any time someone can point out something major where
    > > Windows works better, first of all...

    >
    > [1] Generating profit for Microsoft.
    > [2] Threads, maybe.
    > [3] Might be easier to sell to large corporations; Dell
    > and Microsoft in particular are advertising Microsoft
    > System Center.
    >


    And Oracle pushing software as a service. Feh.

    jg
    --
    @home.com is bogus.
    "... keynote gloriously isolated from reality..."
    http://www.regdeveloper.co.uk/2008/0...e_bea_layoffs/

  2. Re: Oracle chief architect says there ought to be one Linux

    On May 8, 1:40*pm, Ivan Marsh wrote:
    > On Thu, 08 May 2008 13:34:30 -0700, joel garry wrote:
    > > On May 8, 10:07*am, chrisv 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?

    jg
    --
    @home.com is bogus.
    http://blogs.zdnet.com/virtualization/?p=413

  3. Re: Oracle chief architect says there ought to be one Linux distribution: Red Hat

    joel garry wrote:
    > On May 8, 1:40 pm, Ivan Marsh wrote:
    >> On Thu, 08 May 2008 13:34:30 -0700, joel garry wrote:
    >>> On May 8, 10:07 am, chrisv 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 ...

    --
    Jeroen



  4. Re: Oracle chief architect says there ought to be one Linux

    joel garry (joel-garry@home.com) wrote:

    : I think google (...snip...)
    : ... And two identical searches _still_ may not give consistent
    : results.

    Since when is google supposed to give consistent results?

    That would be a _bad_ thing.

    Any algorithm that can tries to reduce terabytes of data into one useful
    page of information must be making a lot of assumptions. If a result page
    doesn't change pretty frequently then that would be the sign of a terrible
    algorithm.


  5. Re: Oracle chief architect says there ought to be one Linux distribution: Red Hat

    bdbafh wrote:

    > Go check under "Certify" on Metalink.oracle.com for what distros are
    > and are not supported.


    Care to provide a direct link?

    > Or would you rather just spew forth an uninformed opinion?


    I was responding to Ramon, who said that it would be good for Oracle
    to support only one Linux distribution.

    Michael

  6. Re: Oracle chief architect says there ought to be one Linux distribution: Red Hat

    joel garry wrote:

    >It says that countless corporations are wrong, to me.


    It's not that simple, of course.


  7. Re: Oracle chief architect says there ought to be one Linux

    On May 8, 7:38 pm, yf...@vtn1.victoria.tc.ca (Malcolm Dew-Jones)
    wrote:
    > joel garry (joel-ga...@home.com) wrote:
    >
    > : I think google (...snip...)
    > : ... And two identical searches _still_ may not give consistent
    > : results.
    >
    > Since when is google supposed to give consistent results?
    >
    > That would be a _bad_ thing.
    >
    > Any algorithm that can tries to reduce terabytes of data into one useful
    > page of information must be making a lot of assumptions. If a result page
    > doesn't change pretty frequently then that would be the sign of a terrible
    > algorithm.



    I am all for giving exact and consistent results every time...

    If we lived in a constant, immovable, static world that is!

    Just freeze the clock, and the Google results will be completely
    consistent...

    Last time I saw a search engine with consistent results was Altavista.
    It had a piece of information gathering software (called "scooter")
    which took a month to traverse the www. Google results are almost real-
    time.

    -RFH


  8. Re: Oracle chief architect says there ought to be one Linux

    On May 9, 1:58 am, Michael Schmarck
    wrote:
    > bdbafh wrote:
    > > Go check under "Certify" on Metalink.oracle.com for what distros are
    > > and are not supported.

    >
    > Care to provide a direct link?
    >


    He cannot. That information is classified. :-)

    Now seriously: you have to be an Oracle Metalink subscriber to see
    the certification matrix.

    Last time I checked Oracle supports 3 distribuitions, all of them in
    the "enterprise" category.

    - RHEL
    - Enterprise SuSE
    - Asia Linux

    Oracle works directly with the folks responsible for the above
    distributions.
    The original one was RedHat. They both (Oracle + RH) opened a
    development lab
    to make sure that the software ran properly on Linux. Oracle gave
    every byte
    on code -as required- back to the community.

    The point is that when tey discover a bug or problem, Oracle can pick
    up a phone,
    make 3 phone calls and yell: "fix this now!".

    It turns out that they would like to make a single phone call, with
    the
    cost savings and wall street pressures and all.

    Ergo, the RH special status.

    -Ramon



  9. Re: Oracle chief architect says there ought to be one Linux

    On May 9, 1:58 am, Michael Schmarck
    wrote:
    > bdbafh wrote:
    > > Go check under "Certify" on Metalink.oracle.com for what distros are
    > > and are not supported.

    >
    > Care to provide a direct link?
    >


    He cannot. That information is classified. :-)

    Now seriously: you have to be an Oracle Metalink subscriber to see the
    certification matrix.

    Last time I checked, Oracle supports 3 distribuitions, all of them in
    the "Enterprise" category.

    - RHEL
    - Enterprise SuSE
    - Asia Linux

    Oracle works directly with the folks responsible for the above
    distributions. The original one was RedHat. They both (Oracle + RH)
    opened a development lab to make sure that the software ran properly
    on Linux. Oracle gave every byte of code -as required- back to the
    community.

    The point is that when they discover a bug or problem, Oracle can pick
    up a phone, make *three* phone calls and yell: "Fix this now!".

    It turns out that they would like to make a *single* phone call, with
    the cost savings, wall street pressures and all.

    Ergo, the RH special status.

    -Ramon


  10. Re: Oracle chief architect says there ought to be one Linux distribution: Red Hat

    On 2008-05-08, Cydrome Leader wrote:
    > In comp.unix.aix chrisv 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

  11. Re: Oracle chief architect says there ought to be one Linux

    On May 8, 6:00*pm, joel garry 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?

  12. Re: Oracle chief architect says there ought to be one Linux distribution: Red Hat

    In article ,
    Chris Mattern wrote:
    > > 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.


    Most corporations don't have an architecture that would benefit from
    that. Most of Google's is distributed, and so if a cheap server goes
    down, it is no big deal--it just puts a little more work on dozens of
    other servers until the dead server gets replaced.

    --
    --Tim Smith

  13. Re: Oracle chief architect says there ought to be one Linux

    On May 9, 6:04 pm, hpuxrac wrote:
    > On May 8, 6:00 pm, joel garry 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



  14. Re: Oracle chief architect says there ought to be one Linux

    On May 9, 7:14*pm, Ramon F Herrera 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.

  15. Re: Oracle chief architect says there ought to be one Linux

    On May 9, 5:40*pm, hpuxrac wrote:
    > On May 9, 7:14*pm, Ramon F Herrera 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

  16. Re: Oracle chief architect says there ought to be one Linux

    On May 8, 3:23*pm, "The Boss" wrote:
    > joel garry wrote:
    > > On May 8, 1:40 pm, Ivan Marsh wrote:
    > >> On Thu, 08 May 2008 13:34:30 -0700, joel garry wrote:
    > >>> On May 8, 10:07 am, chrisv 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.

  17. Re: Oracle chief architect says there ought to be one Linux

    On May 8, 4:38*pm, yf...@vtn1.victoria.tc.ca (Malcolm Dew-Jones)
    wrote:
    > joel garry (joel-ga...@home.com) wrote:
    >
    > : I think google (...snip...)
    > : ... And two identical searches _still_ may not give consistent
    > : results.
    >
    > Since when is google supposed to give consistent results?
    >
    > That would be a _bad_ thing.
    >
    > Any algorithm that can tries to reduce terabytes of data into one useful
    > page of information must be making a lot of assumptions. *If a result page
    > doesn't change pretty frequently then that would be the sign of a terrible
    > algorithm.


    Well, I'm a db geek, and for me an algorithm that doesn't reduce to
    correct results when given enough specificity is a bad, bad algorithm.

    But even worse is an actual commercial transaction that doesn't follow
    the basic rules of transactions. Been there, done that, got the
    credit card bill, got the fraud investigation going.

    Face it, google's entire business model is based on advertising. They
    have no accountability at all for it. Great for them, evil
    incarnate. And it does crack me up when they serve me up Arabic or
    Chinese ads, I have no idea why they think I can read either.

    jg
    --
    @home.com is bogus.
    Golden Shield Project: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200803/chinese-firewall

  18. Re: Oracle chief architect says there ought to be one Linux

    * joel garry peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > Face it, google's entire business model is based on advertising. They
    > have no accountability at all for it. Great for them, evil
    > incarnate. And it does crack me up when they serve me up Arabic or
    > Chinese ads, I have no idea why they think I can read either.


    Check your LANG variable.

    --
    I'm a great believer that any tool that enhances communication has profound
    effects in terms of how people can learn from each other, and how they can
    achieve the kind of freedoms that they're interested in.
    -- Bill Gates

  19. Re: Oracle chief architect says there ought to be one Linux

    joel garry (joel-garry@home.com) wrote:
    : On May 8, 4:38=A0pm, yf...@vtn1.victoria.tc.ca (Malcolm Dew-Jones)
    : wrote:
    : > joel garry (joel-ga...@home.com) wrote:
    : >
    : > : I think google (...snip...)
    : > : ... And two identical searches _still_ may not give consistent
    : > : results.
    : >
    : > Since when is google supposed to give consistent results?
    : >
    : > That would be a _bad_ thing.
    : >
    : > Any algorithm that can tries to reduce terabytes of data into one useful
    : > page of information must be making a lot of assumptions. =A0If a result pa=
    : ge
    : > doesn't change pretty frequently then that would be the sign of a terrible=

    : > algorithm.

    : Well, I'm a db geek, and for me an algorithm that doesn't reduce to
    : correct results when given enough specificity is a bad, bad algorithm.

    There are no "correct results" in a heuristic search where they're trying
    to guess what some anonymous user really wants. If you make the same
    query twice, does that mean you found the first search useful and want to
    see the results again, or does it mean the first set of results was
    useless and you're hoping they'll find something else to tell you about?
    (Just like repeating the same question to a person when they don't answer
    it correctly the first time.)


    : But even worse is an actual commercial transaction that doesn't follow
    : the basic rules of transactions. Been there, done that, got the
    : credit card bill, got the fraud investigation going.

    I don't see that the search part of a google search is in anyway a
    "commercial transaction".


    : Face it, google's entire business model is based on advertising. They
    : have no accountability at all for it. Great for them, evil
    : incarnate. And it does crack me up when they serve me up Arabic or
    : Chinese ads, I have no idea why they think I can read either.

    That may all be true, but there is still no reason why a search from a
    user would always show the same advertising. After all, if you followed
    the ad-link then you don't need to see it again, and if you didn't follow
    the ad-link then "obviously" you aren't interested in that ad. Either way
    it implies that the same ads should _not_ be consistently shown.

    Whether you can audit when your ads are shown for billing purposes is a
    very valid concern, but it has no relation to whether the search results,
    including the ads, should be shown consistently or not.


+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2