> Orvar Korvar wrote:
> > I dont like TPC-C. Why? SUN has before said that
> TPC-Cs are pointless and meaningless. IBMs fastest server is
> a 17 million USD machine with 2TB RAM. I thought SUN was
> above those artificial benches. Maybe Oracle is not?
> >
> But what Sun needs is lots of marketin
Orvar Korvar wrote:
I dont like TPC-C. Why? SUN has before said that TPC-Cs are pointless and
meaningless. IBMs fastest server is a 17 million USD machine with 2TB RAM. I
thought SUN was above those artificial benches. Maybe Oracle is not?
But what Sun needs is lots of marketing and publicit
I dont like TPC-C. Why? SUN has before said that TPC-Cs are pointless and
meaningless. IBMs fastest server is a 17 million USD machine with 2TB RAM. I
thought SUN was above those artificial benches. Maybe Oracle is not?
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 1:01 AM, Alan
Coopersmith wrote:
> http://www.oracle.com/features/sunoraclefaster.html
>
> --
> -Alan Coopersmith- alan.coopersm...@sun.com
> Sun Microsystems, Inc. - X Window System Engineering
Boo!!!
LLS!
(LongLiveSPARC!!!)
:
%martin
__
http://www.oracle.com/features/sunoraclefaster.html
--
-Alan Coopersmith- alan.coopersm...@sun.com
Sun Microsystems, Inc. - X Window System Engineering
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Jörg :
Don't lower yourself to this, please.
I can not read the German article nor do I care to waste my time on the
translation. The english article is probably the same sort of content.
Where it reveals this stunning observation :
"Since then, though, Ellison has said that he inte
http://www.heise.de/newsticker/Geht-Suns-Hardware-Sparte-doch-noch-an-HP--/meldung/144474
http://brainstormtech.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2009/08/27/oracle-could-deal-sun-hardware-to-hp/
Jörg
--
EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
j...@cs.tu-berlin.d
I have no knowledge of that at all. No knowledge of whether rumors are true or
not.
The reports all give some sort of timeline for whatever they are discussing.
All I'm saying is that it would be nice to let things just play out. That's it.
Nothing more, nothing less.
--Robs
On 03/23/09 22:4
Joerg Schilling wrote:
If Sun does this, it is a good step, but it would
stigmatise the CDDL as a license that is not really loved even
inside Sun.
No, it simply recognizes that every project has it's own set of
goals and constraints which affect the license choice, and those
are very differen
Glynn Foster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No rumour at all. The entire stack is being licensed under the GPLv2, with
> some
> classpath exceptions. The major reason is getting to an OSI community approved
> license that everyone has already agreed to [see gcj/classpath]. It's the
> license with t
On 13/11/06, Joerg Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If Sun does this, it is a good step, but it would
stigmatise the CDDL as a license that is not really loved even
inside Sun.
Anybody knows more?
This was quite a good read (from a 'why not BSD' perspective):
http://www.infoq.com/news/200
Joerg Schilling wrote:
> If Sun does this, it is a good step, but it would
> stigmatise the CDDL as a license that is not really loved even
> inside Sun.
>
> Anybody knows more?
No rumour at all. The entire stack is being licensed under the GPLv2, with some
classpath exceptions. The major reas
If Sun does this, it is a good step, but it would
stigmatise the CDDL as a license that is not really loved even
inside Sun.
Anybody knows more?
Jörg
--
EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
[EMAIL PROTECTED](uni)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
13 matches
Mail list logo
