-----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.)
|
|
