 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Check it out:
http://tinyurl.com/452w2fu
OK, so most of these aren't particularly surprising. Microsoft, Google,
Apple, Intel, IBM, and a few oil companies. It's perhaps slightly
surprising that (for example) IBM is more profitable than Apple. But
there's no surprise that these guys are all at the top.
The real surprise is... wait, Exxon? For real?! Jesus, I thought they
went bankrupt decades ago... Apparently they're still alive somehow.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> http://tinyurl.com/452w2fu
Microsoft, the fourth most profitable company in the world, and they
whine and moan about Linux's market share and how free software is killing
the industry.
The only rational response to that is STFU.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 07/06/2011 11:40 AM, Warp wrote:
> Microsoft, the fourth most profitable company in the world, and they
> whine and moan about Linux's market share and how free software is killing
> the industry.
And, curiously, they *don't* seem to be complaining about Apple, which
looks like a waaaay bigger threat from where I'm sitting...
> The only rational response to that is STFU.
Uh, yeah.
Also, FWIW, there /are/ companies trying to make money out of Linux. I
don't see any of them in this list. (I might have expected Novell to
make an appearence, but since they got rid of Jim I guess they're not
doing so well...)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Check it out:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/452w2fu
>
> OK, so most of these aren't particularly surprising. Microsoft, Google,
> Apple, Intel, IBM, and a few oil companies. It's perhaps slightly
> surprising that (for example) IBM is more profitable than Apple. But
> there's no surprise that these guys are all at the top.
>
> The real surprise is... wait, Exxon? For real?! Jesus, I thought they
> went bankrupt decades ago... Apparently they're still alive somehow.
the information highway is not as crowded as physical ones, seemingly...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> On 07/06/2011 11:40 AM, Warp wrote:
>
> > Microsoft, the fourth most profitable company in the world, and they
> > whine and moan about Linux's market share and how free software is killing
> > the industry.
>
> And, curiously, they *don't* seem to be complaining about Apple, which
> looks like a waaaay bigger threat from where I'm sitting...
Apple is more like a commercial partner or a branch of their business focusing
on niche markets. They share the very same monopolistic and individual freedoms
suppression of one another.
I heard recently that Apple now wants your iTunes music to be in the "cloud",
which is just a poetic euphemism for their server. So, you see, not only you
don't have anymore any physical property over music, books and movies you buy --
you only have a license to consume it from some devices for god-only knows how
long -- as you also will quickly run out of batteries from all network streaming
to your mobile device. Pretty dumb move, I'd say. And yet, cattle people are
gladly running for it, sharing the LSD vision of scumbag Jobs...
> > The only rational response to that is STFU.
>
> Uh, yeah.
>
> Also, FWIW, there /are/ companies trying to make money out of Linux. I
> don't see any of them in this list. (I might have expected Novell to
> make an appearence, but since they got rid of Jim I guess they're not
> doing so well...)
Novell has been bought by some dummy division of M$, which is what usually
happens with companies shaking hands with the devil. A nice stab in the back.
But, hey, at least Novell clients are protected from all M$ IP and patents in
Linux, right?
This post brought to you by bile industries.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 07/06/2011 01:08 PM, nemesis wrote:
> This post brought to you by bile industries.
Well, that explains the name then. :-P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 2011-06-07 05:32, Invisible a écrit :
> Check it out:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/452w2fu
>
> OK, so most of these aren't particularly surprising. Microsoft, Google,
> Apple, Intel, IBM, and a few oil companies. It's perhaps slightly
> surprising that (for example) IBM is more profitable than Apple. But
> there's no surprise that these guys are all at the top.
Why would it be a surprise that IBM is more profitable than Apple?
Apple's customer base is individuals whereas IBM, since it got rid of
its PC division, caters almost exclusively to the corporate crowd. The
profit margins are much bigger on big juicy corporate contracts than
they are on cheap electronic gadgets.
>
> The real surprise is... wait, Exxon? For real?! Jesus, I thought they
> went bankrupt decades ago... Apparently they're still alive somehow.
Not just somehow... They're one of the bigger players in North America.
In fact, there's a famous picture of their CEO
(http://www.goingfaster.com/darkthoughts/ceo.jpg) that has been going
around the Internet for the last few years, usually in conjunction with
complaints about high gas prices and the ludicrous explanations the
industry comes up to justify them.
--
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/* flabreque */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/* @ */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/* gmail.com */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> OK, so most of these aren't particularly surprising. Microsoft, Google,
>> Apple, Intel, IBM, and a few oil companies. It's perhaps slightly
>> surprising that (for example) IBM is more profitable than Apple. But
>> there's no surprise that these guys are all at the top.
>
> Why would it be a surprise that IBM is more profitable than Apple?
Because, last I heard, the company was in severe financial trouble and
was close to being liquidated. To go from that to being one of the most
profitable companies on Earth is a pretty big turn-around.
>> The real surprise is... wait, Exxon? For real?! Jesus, I thought they
>> went bankrupt decades ago... Apparently they're still alive somehow.
>
> Not just somehow... They're one of the bigger players in North America.
That's what's so surprising. Not only have they somehow survived, but
they're profitable. And not just a bit profitable. /Very/ profitable. In
fact /the most/ profitable that it is physically possible to be. That's
really unexpected.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 6/7/2011 3:40, Warp wrote:
> Microsoft, the fourth most profitable company in the world, and they
> whine and moan about Linux's market share and how free software is killing
> the industry.
You know, I've never actually seen MS complain about Linux market share.
They FUD about GNU licensing and such, and dis the OS and all, but I've
never heard them "complain". Can you post a link next time you run across
what you're talking about here?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Coding without comments is like
driving without turn signals."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> On 6/7/2011 3:40, Warp wrote:
> > Microsoft, the fourth most profitable company in the world, and they
> > whine and moan about Linux's market share and how free software is killing
> > the industry.
> You know, I've never actually seen MS complain about Linux market share.
> They FUD about GNU licensing and such, and dis the OS and all, but I've
> never heard them "complain". Can you post a link next time you run across
> what you're talking about here?
I didn't mean to say that Microsoft has explicitly complained about
Linux's market share being too large. On the contrary, they (read: Steve
Ballmer) always remember to proudly proclaim how Windows is the most
popular OS by a large margin (iow. argument ad populum).
It's their actions and FUD campaigns against free software in general and
Linux in particular that give the clear impression that they are worried
about Linux's market share, especially in large companies, web servers and
such. They clearly see Linux (rather than, say, Mac OS X) as their worst
competitor, especially on those markets, and they seem to be quite eager
to do whatever is necessary to dissuade companies from switching to Linux.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> > Why would it be a surprise that IBM is more profitable than Apple?
> Because, last I heard, the company was in severe financial trouble and
> was close to being liquidated.
Usually your "last I heard" means "something like 10 years ago".
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 08/06/2011 01:50 PM, Warp wrote:
> Invisible<voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>>> Why would it be a surprise that IBM is more profitable than Apple?
>
>> Because, last I heard, the company was in severe financial trouble and
>> was close to being liquidated.
>
> Usually your "last I heard" means "something like 10 years ago".
Generally when a company is liquidated, you don't hear about them again.
But sure, point taken. I don't make a habit of reviewing corporate
performance on a regular basis.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 2011-06-07 09:36, Invisible a écrit :
>>> OK, so most of these aren't particularly surprising. Microsoft, Google,
>>> Apple, Intel, IBM, and a few oil companies. It's perhaps slightly
>>> surprising that (for example) IBM is more profitable than Apple. But
>>> there's no surprise that these guys are all at the top.
>>
>> Why would it be a surprise that IBM is more profitable than Apple?
>
> Because, last I heard, the company was in severe financial trouble and
> was close to being liquidated. To go from that to being one of the most
> profitable companies on Earth is a pretty big turn-around.
>
"Last you heard" was in the 80s, and you heard wrong. Since Lou
Gerstner took over in 1991, the company has been doing great. They even
sailed through the bursting of the dotcom bubble completely unscathed.
So much in fact, that the Securities and Exchange Commission
investigated them to see if they were cooking their books like Enron,
Nortel or MCI/Worldcomm.
>>> The real surprise is... wait, Exxon? For real?! Jesus, I thought they
>>> went bankrupt decades ago... Apparently they're still alive somehow.
>>
>> Not just somehow... They're one of the bigger players in North America.
>
> That's what's so surprising. Not only have they somehow survived, but
Survived what? The Exxon Valdez disaster was a mere footnote in their
history. Don't base your financial knowledge on Kevin Costner movies.
--
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/* flabreque */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/* @ */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/* gmail.com */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Francois Labreque <fla### [at] videotronca> wrote:
> Don't base your financial knowledge on Kevin Costner movies.
What? You mean Hollywood movies are not always right?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> Why would it be a surprise that IBM is more profitable than Apple?
>>
>> Because, last I heard, the company was in severe financial trouble and
>> was close to being liquidated. To go from that to being one of the most
>> profitable companies on Earth is a pretty big turn-around.
>
> "Last you heard" was in the 80s, and you heard wrong.
OK, fair enough. But given that they were once a big name that everybody
knew and talked about, and now nobody ever mentions their name, it's not
surprising that I got the impression that they weren't doing so well.
> Survived what? The Exxon Valdez disaster was a mere footnote in their
> history.
One of the worst, most infamous ecological catastrophes in human
history, and it's a "mere footnote"?? How did it not end their
existence? How did they not get sued off the face of creation?
> Don't base your financial knowledge on Kevin Costner movies.
There's a movie?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 08/06/2011 01:49 PM, Warp wrote:
> I didn't mean to say that Microsoft has explicitly complained about
> Linux's market share being too large. On the contrary, they (read: Steve
> Ballmer) always remember to proudly proclaim how Windows is the most
> popular OS by a large margin (iow. argument ad populum).
>
> It's their actions and FUD campaigns against free software in general and
> Linux in particular that give the clear impression that they are worried
> about Linux's market share, especially in large companies, web servers and
> such. They clearly see Linux (rather than, say, Mac OS X) as their worst
> competitor, especially on those markets, and they seem to be quite eager
> to do whatever is necessary to dissuade companies from switching to Linux.
The Halloween Documents.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halloween_Documents
(Damnit, you have /no idea/ how long it just took me to remember WTF
those are called!)
Clearly the official line of "we're not worried about Linux at all" is
untrue. Or at least, it was. (The documents are quite old now.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> OK, fair enough. But given that they were once a big name that everybody
> knew and talked about, and now nobody ever mentions their name, it's not
> surprising that I got the impression that they weren't doing so well.
A change in domain (from desktop computers to servers and other such
more "hidden" technological services) doesn't mean they are dying. It just
means they are less visible on shop selves and people's desktops.
> > Survived what? The Exxon Valdez disaster was a mere footnote in their
> > history.
> One of the worst, most infamous ecological catastrophes in human
> history, and it's a "mere footnote"?? How did it not end their
> existence?
Accidents happen. Why should it end the existence of a multi-billion dollar
company?
> How did they not get sued off the face of creation?
Suing someone for an accident seldom has any significant effect on
anything.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 08/06/2011 02:36 PM, Warp wrote:
> Invisible<voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> OK, fair enough. But given that they were once a big name that everybody
>> knew and talked about, and now nobody ever mentions their name, it's not
>> surprising that I got the impression that they weren't doing so well.
>
> A change in domain (from desktop computers to servers and other such
> more "hidden" technological services) doesn't mean they are dying. It just
> means they are less visible on shop selves and people's desktops.
OK, that's fair enough. But I also heard a lot of stuff about how they
weren't doing so well. That combined with a gradual lack of visibility
certainly doesn't /look/ very healthy. (As evidenced here, it's not
conclusive though.)
>> One of the worst, most infamous ecological catastrophes in human
>> history, and it's a "mere footnote"?? How did it not end their
>> existence?
>
> Accidents happen. Why should it end the existence of a multi-billion dollar
> company?
The way I remember it, it wasn't just an accident. There were serious
questions of negligence involved.
> Suing someone for an accident seldom has any significant effect on
> anything.
I guess if people thought that, nobody would get sued...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> writes:
>> Survived what? The Exxon Valdez disaster was a mere footnote in their
>> history.
>
> One of the worst, most infamous ecological catastrophes in human
> history, and it's a "mere footnote"?? How did it not end their
> existence? How did they not get sued off the face of creation?
Because they figured out how not to pay as much in damages as they were
ordered to.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 6/8/2011 5:49, Warp wrote:
> Linux in particular that give the clear impression that they are worried
> about Linux's market share,
OK, fair enough. Yes, I've seen that. Thanks for clarifying.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Coding without comments is like
driving without turn signals."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 6/8/2011 6:20, Invisible wrote:
> and now nobody ever mentions their name,
It's on signs on pretty much every street corner here. ;-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Coding without comments is like
driving without turn signals."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 6/8/2011 5:49 AM, Warp wrote:
> Darren New<dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> On 6/7/2011 3:40, Warp wrote:
>>> Microsoft, the fourth most profitable company in the world, and they
>>> whine and moan about Linux's market share and how free software is killing
>>> the industry.
>
>> You know, I've never actually seen MS complain about Linux market share.
>> They FUD about GNU licensing and such, and dis the OS and all, but I've
>> never heard them "complain". Can you post a link next time you run across
>> what you're talking about here?
>
> I didn't mean to say that Microsoft has explicitly complained about
> Linux's market share being too large. On the contrary, they (read: Steve
> Ballmer) always remember to proudly proclaim how Windows is the most
> popular OS by a large margin (iow. argument ad populum).
>
Shouldn't that actually be like "argument ad preinstallum"? lol
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 6/8/2011 8:32 AM, Neeum Zawan wrote:
> Invisible<voi### [at] devnull> writes:
>
>>> Survived what? The Exxon Valdez disaster was a mere footnote in their
>>> history.
>>
>> One of the worst, most infamous ecological catastrophes in human
>> history, and it's a "mere footnote"?? How did it not end their
>> existence? How did they not get sued off the face of creation?
>
> Because they figured out how not to pay as much in damages as they were
> ordered to.
Which, in most of these cases, means, "As little as possible for the
court to charge them, without actually doing anything that would keep
them from making the same mistake again." The Coch brother's companies
are sued over environmental issues, and fined, on an almost yearly basis
too, their response is to funnel an equal, or more, money into right
wing think tanks, to go to congress and babble about how they don't need
the EPA, and all those damn regulations are unnecessary. Its pretty cost
effective. Pay a few million in fines, funnel ten million to
professional liars, and rake in billions from your actual products. They
probably pay more to take lunch in Paris, by flying there in a private
jet, than they get charged for the violating anything. Until that
changes, and companies have to pay real money, that actually damages the
business... But, seriously, they know they can have problems, and they
spend more time figuring out how much they can afford to pay out, to
appear contrite, than they do *actually* developing safety programs, or
making sure equipment works, or watching out for the possibility that
their workers are drunk off their asses.
After all, they have half the government on their side, to lie about how
it really hurt them to pay out a few million, how *unfair* it is to make
them follow rules, and/or pay 35% taxes, down from nearly 50% in the
50s, and they should instead only have to pay 25% (then loop hole that
into 1%, or even 0%). Where have we heard that logic before? Oh, right,
back when a major insurance company:
1. Bought out the company that determined average costs for medical
treatment.
2. Had them inflate the costs.
3. Got sued
4. Paid out money to create a new alternate company for that, while
being allowed to keep their own, they opted to *not* use, so that the
result was that they *still* used inflated prices.
5. Argued, 20 years later, that it was *unfair* that people had to only
pay 25% over and above what it actually cost to be treated (based on
their inflated costs), and no, the insured should be paying 35% of the
bill. A charge that "originally" was only charged to you *if* the cost
of the doctor you went to was *higher* than the average cost, nation
wide, but slowly crept up to 10%, then 15%, then 20%, then 25%, then
finally, "Oh, congress! Poor us! Its bankrupting us to have to pay 75%
of the bill!"
Same stupid shit. Don't tax us what they did 50 years ago, and, let us
charge 100% over what we would have, in the same time period, for a
service we will turn around and tell people they don't qualify for in
the first place (not just insurance mind, but everyone from your
computer maker, to your phone company, to cell companies, etc., all of
whom want to charge you for shit that was free, or is even more trivial
to provide now than it was 60 years ago, but which would, "bankrupt
them", if they didn't charge you extra for every damn little thing,
while then turning around, and in the same year, getting bloody hundred
million dollar "tax refunds" from the government, possibly on top of
free money they already got, as "incentives" to supposedly make things
cheaper, instead of continually raising the frakking prices on us, and
charging you if they accidentally left pocket lint in the new shorts you
bought (an added feature/commodity, don't cha know).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 2011-06-08 09:20, Invisible a écrit :
>>>> Why would it be a surprise that IBM is more profitable than Apple?
>>>
>>> Because, last I heard, the company was in severe financial trouble and
>>> was close to being liquidated. To go from that to being one of the most
>>> profitable companies on Earth is a pretty big turn-around.
>>
>> "Last you heard" was in the 80s, and you heard wrong.
>
> OK, fair enough. But given that they were once a big name that everybody
> knew and talked about, and now nobody ever mentions their name, it's not
> surprising that I got the impression that they weren't doing so well.
They're still a pretty big name. Just because you haven't heard from
them doesn't mean no one has. You've heard of Thinkpad latops, haven't
you? They spun off that division 5 years ago because, while it was
profitable, it wasn't profitable enough... This means their server
divisions, application divisions, as well as their service offerings
were even more succesful.
Every single developped country's government uses IBM mainframes.
Every single bank in the world still uses IBM mainframes.
Every single insurance compnay in the world still uses IBM mainframes.
Every single airline in the world still uses IBM mainframes.
Most of the Fortune 1000 companies have IBM mainframes (Google is
probably one of the very few exceptions)
Most of the above will have hundreds of P-Series (AIX) servers, AS/400s,
And intel-based servers made by IBM. Not to mention use various Tivoli
monitoring tools, Websphere applications platforms, and in many case,
Lotus Notes for internal e-mail.
Also, watch this, when you have 15 minutes of spare time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39jtNUGgmd4
>
>> Survived what? The Exxon Valdez disaster was a mere footnote in their
>> history.
>
> One of the worst, most infamous ecological catastrophes in human
> history, and it's a "mere footnote"?? How did it not end their
> existence? How did they not get sued off the face of creation?
>
You've heard of appeals courts? Exxon has yet to pay a single cent of
what they were fined, and even when they finally do, it will not harm
them in the long run. Their fine has been capped at $507M, which is
roughly their profits for one week (they made $30B in profits last year).
Oh, and by the way, the Bhopal disaster hadn't killed Union Carbide
before they were bought out by Dow Chemicals, and last summer's
Deepwater Horizon tragedy will not kill BP, either. It's sad, but it's
the truth.
>> Don't base your financial knowledge on Kevin Costner movies.
>
> There's a movie?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0114898/
--
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/* flabreque */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/* @ */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/* gmail.com */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 6/8/2011 10:46, Darren New wrote:
> On 6/8/2011 6:20, Invisible wrote:
>> and now nobody ever mentions their name,
>
> It's on signs on pretty much every street corner here. ;-)
Sorry. I thought we were still talking about Exxon.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Coding without comments is like
driving without turn signals."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> and now nobody ever mentions their name,
>>
>> It's on signs on pretty much every street corner here. ;-)
>
> Sorry. I thought we were still talking about Exxon.
Well, for that matter, I'd never heard of Exxon before the tanker
disaster, and I never heard about them again afterwards. (Which probably
just means they trade under different names in this country.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> "Last you heard" was in the 80s, and you heard wrong.
>>
>> OK, fair enough. But given that they were once a big name that everybody
>> knew and talked about, and now nobody ever mentions their name, it's not
>> surprising that I got the impression that they weren't doing so well.
>
> They're still a pretty big name. Just because you haven't heard from
> them doesn't mean no one has.
OK, fair enough. My point was that what *I* have or haven't heard about
is all I've got to go on.
>> One of the worst, most infamous ecological catastrophes in human
>> history, and it's a "mere footnote"?? How did it not end their
>> existence? How did they not get sued off the face of creation?
>
> You've heard of appeals courts? Exxon has yet to pay a single cent of
> what they were fined, and even when they finally do, it will not harm
> them in the long run.
Figures...
> Oh, and by the way, the Bhopal disaster hadn't killed Union Carbide
Yeah, but that happened in a 3rd world country that people only
/pretend/ to give a damn about.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 2011-06-09 04:10, Invisible a écrit :
>>>> and now nobody ever mentions their name,
>>>
>>> It's on signs on pretty much every street corner here. ;-)
>>
>> Sorry. I thought we were still talking about Exxon.
>
> Well, for that matter, I'd never heard of Exxon before the tanker
> disaster, and I never heard about them again afterwards. (Which probably
> just means they trade under different names in this country.)
Esso and Mobil.
--
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/* flabreque */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/* @ */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/* gmail.com */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
> Shouldn't that actually be like "argument ad preinstallum"? lol
I just find it hilarious when Steve Ballmer makes the argument from
popularity, like in that one interview where the interviewer asked something
like "seriously, what is it with Windows Vista?" and Ballmer argued something
like "What? The second most used operating system in the world?" (obviously
referring to XP as the most popular one), as if popularity was some kind of
indication of quality.
The vast majority of people who had (and have) Vista in their PCs had
no choice. It's not like Vista became "the second most popular OS" by
people's choice. It became the second most popular because computer vendors
made the choice for their customers, often without even offering any
alternatives (unless a customer specifically asks for one, and how many
of them do?)
It's a bit like arguing that OPEC is a great organization because the
vast majority of the world's oil comes from them. That would be one of
the dumbest arguments in existence.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 6/9/2011 5:48, Francois Labreque wrote:
> Esso and Mobil.
And "Esso" is the name they took after the US government thought they were
too big and broke them up.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Coding without comments is like
driving without turn signals."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 09/06/2011 03:50 PM, Warp wrote:
> The vast majority of people who had (and have) Vista in their PCs had
> no choice. It's not like Vista became "the second most popular OS" by
> people's choice. It became the second most popular because computer vendors
> made the choice for their customers
Heh, yeah.
Sometimes I wonder if red sports cars are *actually* more popular, or
whether it's just that most sports cars available happen to be red...
> It's a bit like arguing that OPEC is a great organization because the
> vast majority of the world's oil comes from them. That would be one of
> the dumbest arguments in existence.
What, dumber than arguing that the supreme improbability of complex life
existing is explained by the pre-existence of something far more improbable?
Or perhaps you meant dumber than arguing that 0.002 cents is actually
the same thing as 0.002 dollars?
Sorry, I couldn't resist... ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 6/8/2011 5:14 PM, Francois Labreque wrote:
> Le 2011-06-08 09:20, Invisible a écrit :
>>>>> Why would it be a surprise that IBM is more profitable than Apple?
>>>>
>>>> Because, last I heard, the company was in severe financial trouble and
>>>> was close to being liquidated. To go from that to being one of the most
>>>> profitable companies on Earth is a pretty big turn-around.
>>>
>>> "Last you heard" was in the 80s, and you heard wrong.
>>
>> OK, fair enough. But given that they were once a big name that everybody
>> knew and talked about, and now nobody ever mentions their name, it's not
>> surprising that I got the impression that they weren't doing so well.
>
> They're still a pretty big name. Just because you haven't heard from
> them doesn't mean no one has. You've heard of Thinkpad latops, haven't
> you? They spun off that division 5 years ago because, while it was
> profitable, it wasn't profitable enough... This means their server
> divisions, application divisions, as well as their service offerings
> were even more succesful.
>
> Every single developped country's government uses IBM mainframes.
> Every single bank in the world still uses IBM mainframes.
> Every single insurance compnay in the world still uses IBM mainframes.
> Every single airline in the world still uses IBM mainframes.
> Most of the Fortune 1000 companies have IBM mainframes (Google is
> probably one of the very few exceptions)
>
> Most of the above will have hundreds of P-Series (AIX) servers, AS/400s,
> And intel-based servers made by IBM. Not to mention use various Tivoli
> monitoring tools, Websphere applications platforms, and in many case,
> Lotus Notes for internal e-mail.
>
> Also, watch this, when you have 15 minutes of spare time.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39jtNUGgmd4
>
The reason for that is that its often cheaper to keep running
mainframes, than go to blade servers. Mind, blades are IBM too, in some
cases, so.. lol But, in general, too much software, archaic file
systems, no easy means to convert, even if you can run the application
on a new system, etc.
>>
>>> Survived what? The Exxon Valdez disaster was a mere footnote in their
>>> history.
>>
>> One of the worst, most infamous ecological catastrophes in human
>> history, and it's a "mere footnote"?? How did it not end their
>> existence? How did they not get sued off the face of creation?
>>
>
> You've heard of appeals courts? Exxon has yet to pay a single cent of
> what they were fined, and even when they finally do, it will not harm
> them in the long run. Their fine has been capped at $507M, which is
> roughly their profits for one week (they made $30B in profits last year).
>
> Oh, and by the way, the Bhopal disaster hadn't killed Union Carbide
> before they were bought out by Dow Chemicals, and last summer's
> Deepwater Horizon tragedy will not kill BP, either. It's sad, but it's
> the truth.
>
Gee, and it couldn't be because of the vast number of Rethuglicans
trying their damnedest to a) stop them paying what they **offered** to
pay themselves, never mind, b) pay more, instead of being left free and
clear by the government.
The thing that pisses me off though is the morons, like some at work,
who fail to grasp that the "small companies" in the US that actually do
their own refining (in theory), and don't funnel all their oil through
foreign systems first (this is legal, under the agreements we have to do
precisely that?), provide a stupidly small amount of the oil in the
country (or certainly a stupidly small amount), and haven't the
equipment, personnel, or the financial resources, even with billions in
government help, which they don't currently get, unlike the
multi-nationals, to have a hope in hell of making up the other 90%
(yeah, made up number), if we "drilled more". Oh, and that is without
even mentioning that 90% of the "prime" oil production areas are
licensed to/owned by, the multinationals, so you would have to divest
them of those assets, to give them to the small US companies. Oh, yeah,
and the even more stupid fact that all those multi-nationals, and really
big ones, are **sitting on** thousands of unused licenses, even as they
whine about needing more of them, so they can drill more wells.
Its like claiming that house hold farmers, with less than 10 square feet
of land, can "replace" 500 acre farm lands, if those same farmers where
busy only planting 20 acres, sitting on the rest, and whining that they
didn't have 1,000 acres.
Its completely mad, and the people that believe we can just drill more,
to fix the problem, are complete morons. The first thing we would have
to do, before anything else, is build more refineries, so we are not
being overcharged for fuel, because they have to retool every bloody 3
months to "change which sort they make". Second, throw out all non-US
drilling companies. Finally, stop selling oil to the outside markets *at
all*, by which point we might be self sufficient, for at least until we
end up having to squeeze it out of the ground, like someone getting the
last drop of water from a damn sponge, while the foreign sources are
still able to scoop the shit up in buckets, because they can't keep it
from leaking out of the damn ground, without even drilling for it.
We need to reduce its use to shit where we have no other options, not
sell 50 more licenses to companies that are not using the ones they
have, and drill more holes in the ground, so that we are producing 2
times almost nothing from *purely* local companies, instead of merely
almost nothing.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 2011-06-09 15:25, Patrick Elliott a écrit :
> On 6/8/2011 5:14 PM, Francois Labreque wrote:
>>
>> Every single developped country's government uses IBM mainframes.
>> Every single bank in the world still uses IBM mainframes.
>> Every single insurance compnay in the world still uses IBM mainframes.
>> Every single airline in the world still uses IBM mainframes.
>> Most of the Fortune 1000 companies have IBM mainframes (Google is
>> probably one of the very few exceptions)
>>
>> Most of the above will have hundreds of P-Series (AIX) servers, AS/400s,
>> And intel-based servers made by IBM. Not to mention use various Tivoli
>> monitoring tools, Websphere applications platforms, and in many case,
>> Lotus Notes for internal e-mail.
>>
>> Also, watch this, when you have 15 minutes of spare time.
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39jtNUGgmd4
>>
> The reason for that is that its often cheaper to keep running
> mainframes, than go to blade servers. Mind, blades are IBM too, in some
> cases, so.. lol But, in general, too much software, archaic file
> systems, no easy means to convert, even if you can run the application
> on a new system, etc.
>
There's also the question of performance. One needs a metric ton of
bladeservers to be able to match the performance under load of a 20 year
old mainframe sysplex. I've worked for many years in the airline
industry IT and came across a few system "upgrades" where transactions
took 3-4 seconds to complete on the mainframe, but required upwards of
15 minutes, in some cases*, on the new client-server, web-enabled,
buzzword-compliant system that was supposed to replace the green screens.
*This one was bad SQL queries due to the default behavior of the RADD
tool used to design the front-end piece of the software, and was
eventually fixed.
>>>
>>>> Survived what? The Exxon Valdez disaster was a mere footnote in their
>>>> history.
>>>
>>> One of the worst, most infamous ecological catastrophes in human
>>> history, and it's a "mere footnote"?? How did it not end their
>>> existence? How did they not get sued off the face of creation?
>>>
I read today that the oil operations in Nigeria spill the equivalent of
one Exxon Valdez per year and it goes unfixed because it's actually
cheaper to lose the oil than to fix the leaks, and no one cares because
... it's Africa.
--
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/* flabreque */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/* @ */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/* gmail.com */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 6/9/2011 18:34, Francois Labreque wrote:
> There's also the question of performance. One needs a metric ton of
> bladeservers to be able to match the performance under load of a 20 year old
> mainframe sysplex.
The main difference between mainframes and smaller systems is that
mainframes are optimized for I/O. Even the mainframe I used 30 years ago
could do several I/O operations simultaneously faster than the CPU could
handle it. For example, you could be swapping in/out three processes, as
well as accessing the data and an index page of a database, while the CPU is
running full speed. There were four IOPs for each CPU, and each IOP could
handle two DMA channels.
Sort of like how video cards nowadays do all kinds of processing without the
CPU's involvement other than setting them up.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Coding without comments is like
driving without turn signals."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 6/9/2011 20:27, Darren New wrote:
> The main difference between mainframes and smaller systems is that
> mainframes are optimized for I/O. Even the mainframe I used 30 years ago
Another example: The mainframe knew which disks were fast (having multiple
heads per platter, for example) and which were slower, and it put the
indexes of databases and directories and such (etc) on the fast disk and the
bulk data and actual file contents on the slow disks. It also allocated
random-access files on cylinder boundaries.
Nowadays, the blades and desktop machines don't even know what the cylinder
boundaries of their disks are.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Coding without comments is like
driving without turn signals."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 2011-06-09 23:27, Darren New a écrit :
> On 6/9/2011 18:34, Francois Labreque wrote:
>> There's also the question of performance. One needs a metric ton of
>> bladeservers to be able to match the performance under load of a 20
>> year old
>> mainframe sysplex.
>
> The main difference between mainframes and smaller systems is that
> mainframes are optimized for I/O. Even the mainframe I used 30 years ago
> could do several I/O operations simultaneously faster than the CPU could
> handle it. For example, you could be swapping in/out three processes, as
> well as accessing the data and an index page of a database, while the
> CPU is running full speed. There were four IOPs for each CPU, and each
> IOP could handle two DMA channels.
Yep, or having separate front-end processors dealing with keeping the
user sessions alive, etc. Leaving the CPUs deal with important stuff.
>
> Sort of like how video cards nowadays do all kinds of processing without
> the CPU's involvement other than setting them up.
>
Or some high-end server network cards implement the basic functionality
of the IP stack, or SSL encryption in hardware.
--
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/* flabreque */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/* @ */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/* gmail.com */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 2011/06/10 00:39, Darren New a écrit :
> On 6/9/2011 20:27, Darren New wrote:
>> The main difference between mainframes and smaller systems is that
>> mainframes are optimized for I/O. Even the mainframe I used 30 years ago
>
> Another example: The mainframe knew which disks were fast (having
> multiple heads per platter, for example) and which were slower, and it
> put the indexes of databases and directories and such (etc) on the fast
> disk and the bulk data and actual file contents on the slow disks. It
> also allocated random-access files on cylinder boundaries.
>
> Nowadays, the blades and desktop machines don't even know what the
> cylinder boundaries of their disks are.
>
You effectively can't know where the boundaries are when the drive never
tels you the truth about it. The drive's organisation have been
virtualised a prety long time ago, and each true cylinders may not have
the same number of sectors as it's neibors. The OS sees all cylinders as
having the same capacity. It also see a sectors, cylinders and heads
count that don't have anything to do with the actual values.
Alain
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 6/10/2011 10:52, Alain wrote:
> It also see a sectors, cylinders and heads count that don't have
> anything to do with the actual values.
Yep. That's what I said. Of course the drive knows which sectors are where.
THe interfaces might not, and the OS can't see it, and that's exactly one
reason why people still use mainframes where important information like this
isn't hidden from the OS.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Coding without comments is like
driving without turn signals."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> On 6/10/2011 10:52, Alain wrote:
> > It also see a sectors, cylinders and heads count that don't have
> > anything to do with the actual values.
>
> Yep. That's what I said. Of course the drive knows which sectors are where.
> THe interfaces might not, and the OS can't see it, and that's exactly one
> reason why people still use mainframes where important information like this
> isn't hidden from the OS.
>
> --
> Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
> "Coding without comments is like
> driving without turn signals."
That's not quite true anymore, at least with IBM mainframes. That was true with
the early IBM drives like the 3330, 3350, 3380, and 3390 drives. But the last
several generations of IBM disk drives have been raid devices. The legacy 3390
disk drive format is emulated by heavily cached controllers, backed by hi-speed
scsi drives. What appears to the mainframe as a cylinder is really data blocks
spread across several scsi drives. The model ds8100 I work with emulates about
1200 3390 virtual drives with a total capacity of 15TB. The actual data is
contained on a hundred or so 10000 RPM scsi drives. All the time I once spent
trying to optimize disk performance by placing system datasets at specific
locations on the drives to minimize head movement is no longer necessary.
Isaac.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 2011-06-10 21:21, Clarence1898 a écrit :
> Darren New<dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> On 6/10/2011 10:52, Alain wrote:
>>> It also see a sectors, cylinders and heads count that don't have
>>> anything to do with the actual values.
>>
>> Yep. That's what I said. Of course the drive knows which sectors are where.
>> THe interfaces might not, and the OS can't see it, and that's exactly one
>> reason why people still use mainframes where important information like this
>> isn't hidden from the OS.
>>
>> --
>> Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
>> "Coding without comments is like
>> driving without turn signals."
>
> That's not quite true anymore, at least with IBM mainframes. That was true with
> the early IBM drives like the 3330, 3350, 3380, and 3390 drives. But the last
> several generations of IBM disk drives have been raid devices. The legacy 3390
> disk drive format is emulated by heavily cached controllers, backed by hi-speed
> scsi drives. What appears to the mainframe as a cylinder is really data blocks
> spread across several scsi drives. The model ds8100 I work with emulates about
> 1200 3390 virtual drives with a total capacity of 15TB. The actual data is
> contained on a hundred or so 10000 RPM scsi drives. All the time I once spent
> trying to optimize disk performance by placing system datasets at specific
> locations on the drives to minimize head movement is no longer necessary.
>
> Isaac.
>
All this talk makes me wonder... has there ever been a mainframe port of
POV-Ray?
/Sorry for veering on-topic
--
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/* flabreque */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/* @ */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/* gmail.com */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 14/06/2011 02:04 PM, Francois Labreque wrote:
> All this talk makes me wonder... has there ever been a mainframe port of
> POV-Ray?
1. Yes, almost certainly.
2. Why would that be useful? Mainframes are supposedly optimised for I/O
performance, not compute performance.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 2011-06-14 09:25, Invisible a écrit :
> On 14/06/2011 02:04 PM, Francois Labreque wrote:
>
>> All this talk makes me wonder... has there ever been a mainframe port of
>> POV-Ray?
>
> 1. Yes, almost certainly.
>
> 2. Why would that be useful? Mainframes are supposedly optimised for I/O
> performance, not compute performance.
Ever heard of Cray Supercomputers? ;-)
--
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/* flabreque */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/* @ */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/* gmail.com */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 14/06/2011 02:42 PM, Francois Labreque wrote:
>> 2. Why would that be useful? Mainframes are supposedly optimised for I/O
>> performance, not compute performance.
>
> Ever heard of Cray Supercomputers? ;-)
Depending on who you ask, a supercomputer isn't the same thing as a
mainframe.
When I was at the London Science Museum, I had a chance to see a Cray 2
supercomputer. According to Wikipedia, this was the fastest computer on
Earth when it was first built, managing to achieve a peak performance of
about 1.9 GFLOPS.
...which sounds like a lot, until you realise that the Cray 2 originally
cost $17 million USD, and today you can buy a GPU for about £500 ($800
US) which produces about 2,488 GFLOPS.
(Also: Trying to get GFLOPS ratings for recent CPUs is like trying to
find gold dust!)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Francois Labreque <fla### [at] videotronca> wrote:
>
> All this talk makes me wonder... has there ever been a mainframe port of
> POV-Ray?
>
I did port a of Povray 3.5 to Linux390, a version of linux that ran on the
IBM 390 series mainframe. Actually it was very simple, download
the povray linux source, and do the standard install. I can't
give any time comparisons since the install was on a mainframe emulator,
not a real machine. If and when I get approval, I would like to install
linux on our mainframe, and of course one of the first things I will
do is install povray. I don't expect it to be that fast compared to
a standard pc. Processor speed is not that much faster than todays
pc's. It has the standard ieee floating point instructions, but its optimized
for commercial business processing, not scientific or engineering type work.
Plus I'll have to come in at 3AM on a Sunday morning when the business workload
is at its lightest.
Isaac.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
