Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

Re: [News] "Self-described Windows Zealot" Must Move to GNU/Linux Because of Windows' Limitations

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 23:35:20 -0400,
 Erik Funkenbusch <erik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 02:28:37 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>
>> Former Windows shop recalls path to Unbreakable Linux
>> 
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>| So why did a self-described Windows zealot migrate the enterprise 
>>| applications of a $2 billion manufacturing company to Linux? The decision, 
>>| Quinn recalled, was borne of necessity and was, therefore, relatively simple 
>>| In 2002, when Acuity Brands wanted to roll out its Oracle financial systems 
>>| to a manufacturing facility in Vermilion, Ohio, its Windows operating system 
>>| couldn't handle the load. "We had three nodes and 150 users, and we needed 
>>| 300 connections [to the Oracle database], said Jim Draughn, the director of 
>>| enterprise engineering. "We had 32-bit x86 boxes with 3 Gigs of memory, and 
>>| Windows just couldn't keep up with our needs."        
>> `----
>> 
>> http://searchenterpriselinux.techtarget.com/news/article/0,289142,sid39_gci1305889,00.html
>
> The article is bull.  What likely happened was Oracle sidled up to them,
> and to this day is still giving them special treatment, most likely in
> exchange for their testimony to the press.
>


"what likely happened" ? 

Who am I to believe? the folks who were there? or you? 

You expect me to believe that a $2,000,000,000 decision was made because
Oracle "sidled up to them"? wtf is that supposed to mean? 

So the guy who made the decision 9 years ago to go MS-Windows, was
honest and upright, made the right decision for his company, and 9 years
later is a corrupt corporate officer who got bought off by Oracle? 

And your evidence for this is? 

> Their claimed reason to move to Linux was that Windows was "thread based",
> which is BS.  Somehow, magically, running processes instead of threads
> somehow uses less memory?  It's the other way around, processes, even on
> Linux, use more memory than threads.  
>

He says that the MS-Windows system couldn't handle the load. 


> If they were running into 4GB memory limits, then they didn't configure
> their system to use PAE, which Oracle supports for larger than 4GB memory
> on 32 bit systems.
>
> Oracle is a pig, but i'm sorry... there are lots of people running Oracle
> on Windows based systems (32 bit ones) that had much higher needs than they
> claimed, but somehow manage to get things done.

Sure, you know their needs much better than they do! they wasted
2Billion$$ They should have hired you to tell them what to do!


You'd have us believe that these guys, a self professed MS-Windows shop,
couldn't, or wouldn't, get MS-Windows running for this, but were able to
do so with Linux.

They chose Linux over MS-Windows, and for some reason, that chaps your
hide. Why?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFH4AJSd90bcYOAWPYRAmRxAJ4hS43KO1Pm/arACrMZFD5uubkuyQCg8blF
X3PzDMhj8xFNNZBnEo9Ok9w=
=Hws3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- 
Jim Richardson     http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
(Whatever is said in Latin sounds profound.)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index