back to article NHS grows a NoSQL backbone and rips out its Oracle Spine

The NHS has ripped the Oracle backbone from a national patient database system and inserted NoSQL running on an open-source stack. Spine2 has gone live following successful redevelopment including redeployment on new, x86 hardware. The project to replace Spine1 had been running for three years with Spine2 now undergoing a 45- …

  1. Aitor 1 Silver badge

    No SQL?

    Terrible.

    It has its advantages: speed, reliability, etc.

    But, if you have functional problems in your system and you have to repair some "non expected use cases".. it is a real pain.

    1. Charlie Clark Silver badge

      Re: No SQL?

      Agreed, though from the admittedly fuzzy description, it sounds like it's a simple document store rather than a database. That would explain having Tornado and RabbitMQ in the mix.

      If things do start to go wrong, it should be easy enough to move to Postgres hstore or jsonb and get some of the reliability back.

    2. BlueGreen

      Re: No SQL? @Aitor 1

      I'd not have put reliability on the NoSQL list.

      1. Peter Jacobs

        Re: No SQL? @Aitor 1

        >> I'd not have put reliability on the NoSQL list.

        Depends on the complexity and temporality of the data. SQL is all too often a golden hammer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_hammer). Massively distributed message-oriented systems, such as Spine2 appears to be, can make ACID impossible (for a given level of performance, anyway).

        All design is compromise. Software design is doubly so. (Apologies to Douglas Adams)

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: No SQL?

      And this is different from Oracle how? Ever tried recover a borked Oracle DB?

  2. Smoking Gun

    Let's all cheer and applaud this one.

    This should have the Microsoft and Oracle haters splunking in their pants.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Let's all cheer and applaud this one.

      I don't hate Microsoft, I don't hate Oracle, I'm just miffed that this happened under a Conservative government, and that it was Nullabor who were in bed with Microsoft and the US consultancies.

      Kudos, though, to Richard Bacon, the Conservative MP who spent so much time on the PAC going on about Government IT wastage and incompetence (as well as voting against the Iraq war). This is what he said in 2011:

      £2.7 billion wasted

      1. Arnold Lieberman
        Alert

        Re: Let's all cheer and applaud this one.

        @ Arnaut the less

        Seems like a good opportunity to reassess your preconceptions/political affiliations/expectations, no?

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Let's all cheer and applaud this one.

          I'm surprised, your surprised, about the Tories. I'm no fan, but Tory policy is and always has been to cut Government spending, so it is pretty much in line with that.

          Labour have always been the bigger government party.

          If your a middle earner, you're still screwed whoever you vote for, so from that side it makes little difference.

          1. Philanthropic Philanderer

            Re: Let's all cheer and applaud this one.

            The problem with the Tories, is that they normally save money by robbing Peter to pay Paul.

            Such as cutting the government's cost by increase in the cost for local councils instead.

            Such as cutting government's borrowing by using PFI, which is still borrowing but through private channels meaning it's not counted as "government debt".

            1. proud2bgrumpy

              Re: Let's all cheer and applaud this one.

              - Really? So what other way is there to save money. Look - unless you are New Labour who just get to imagine money that doesn't exist in order to buy votes, then 'Robbing Peter to Pay Paul' - or - 'Managing Funds' is how stuff gets paid for. There is only so much money in circulation, you starve one budget (Peter) to feed another (Paul) as and when required. If you have any financial responsibility in your day-to-day life then you 'rob Peter to pay Paul' every day - ie: 'Can't go for a curry with the lads tonight because the car insurance is due' or 'Will pay to get the guttering cleared to avoid paying damage due to damp'.

              Honestly - how else do you think budgets get managed other than Robbing Peter to Pay Paul.

        2. This post has been deleted by its author

      2. ToddR

        Re: Let's all cheer and applaud this one.

        Stupid left wing whinge

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Hey lay off the NHS!

        Failed, runiously expensive, overly ambitious, poorly defined, mis-managed government (especially NHS/defence) initiatives with endlessly deep pockets of public funding is what keeps the IT industry afloat - both parties agree to walk away, nothing has to be delivered, no harm done, but lots of lovely dinners and educational *events* have been shared - everybody (who isn't a Tax payer wins)...

    2. sabroni Silver badge
      Thumb Up

      Re: splunking in their pants

      They're going caving in their pants? Extreme caving!!

  3. Matt 21

    Top marks

    ....for going Open Source but they really should have looked at Postgress. They probably could have saved more by simply migrating to Intel/AMD and keeping Oracle instead of re-writing everything, unless it's a fairly trivial system in which case it was over specified to start with.

    1. mtheory

      Re: Top marks

      I can't image that they spent 3 years on this and didn't consider all the options, they must be a pretty savvy bunch if you read the other articles about this. I assume that the Riak system they built was the best option in this case.

      I also doubt any system where peoples lives are at risk would be considered trivial.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Top marks

        Why does anyone think that moving from one DB technology to another is difficult? Any (reasonably) modern application should be designed with an abstraction layer to translate between different vendor DBs. When the SW licencing costs from the like of Oracle for these scale of DBs amounts to many £M, then the relative cost of migrating from one DB to another is likely to be tiny. Plus the proven ability to change vendor puts the user in a very strong position to negotiate favourable licencing terms. Most commercial apps use pretty generic SQL, migrating from say Oracle to DB2 is less difficult than you think - be brave - give your DB supplier a hard time, there are lots of options out there and the likes of Oracle know very well that the genie will soon be out of the bottle.

        1. Philip Lewis

          Re: Top marks

          Igronance is bliss I guess.

    2. Fluffy Bunny
      Boffin

      Re: Top marks

      There are probably good reasons they dropped Oracle (aside from the high cost):

      1. relational databases are good if you have lazy administrators - but all those views and joins come at a high cost.

      2. their primary need was for a key-value system, which can be much more efficiently done without SQL. This will increase their price-performance point by a substantial margin.

      3. if they had any sort of distributed requirements, they are much better off rolling their own (simply by adding a field to hold the date/time a record was updated and writing their own replication engine) - in tests I heard of using Oracle replication, it wasn't possible to replicate to more than 7 hosts before network overhead (of ACID transactions I suspect?) killed the system. Dropping ACID and using a custom replication engine (which wasn't very expensive) fixed the problem

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Top marks

        I don't know of your spreading FUD for the sake of it or you are simply misguided.

        1. RDBMSs are good because administration isn't onerous.

        2.Not sure what your point is. Keys are a useful way to access data and make sense of it. They perform very well.

        3. I can't comment on Oracle replication as I haven't used it but I have seen other RDBMSs replicate to over 200 remote sites. ACID really isn't that costly and I've often seen even average site manage thousands of ACID transaction a second which is unlikely to be needed in the case in the article. In memory databases up that again, to the point it is no longer a limiting factor even in the most exteme of applications.

        1. swansonc

          Re: Top marks

          Multi-master SQL databases to 200+ sites with full ACID, really? Master-slave, I get, master-master for all sites, I really am having a hard time believing.

          Furthermore, RDBMS administration isn't onerous, but it's not easy either (and it's certainly a specific skill-set). A lot of NoSQL databases are much easier to administer, and can be administered by standard SA's, not DB SA's. You can get a multinode, fully HA Riak cluster up in literally 3 minutes and start transacting against it. Dynamically adding and removing nodes in that cluster also can happen on the fly. I'd like to see any classical RDBMS do that.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Top marks

        Should have used Lisp hashes...

      3. swansonc

        Re: Top marks

        Actually, you get replication/distributed environments with NoSQL (that's why so many folks are moving that way). I don't need to roll it, its already there. In the case of Riak, they use vector clocks to reach eventual consistency.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Top marks

      "for going Open Source but they really should have looked at Postgress"

      They might as well have used MSSQL server if that was the case - it has a lot fewer security holes and a lot more functionality for a start. The clear thing here is that the database doesn't really do much other than act as a big indexed file store - so crappy and limited feature products like No SQL can do the job...

      1. Hans 1 Silver badge
        Linux

        Re: Top marks

        @AC

        >They might as well have used MSSQL server if that was the case - it has a lot fewer security holes and a lot more functionality for a start.

        ROFLMAO

        Did you even read the article ?

        1. They want to save money

        2. They said RDBMS is overkill

        BTW, nobody in their right mind would consider MSSQL for anything

        If they wanna save even more, when are they ditching Windows ?

      2. Philip Lewis

        Re: Top marks

        14:1

        This is far less than the average ratio of moron programmers to top tier database professionals.

        The Register, home of the unwashed, I mean brainwashed.

  4. Spender
    WTF?

    "80 million people in Britain"

    Last time I checked there were about 64 million people in Britain. Where did the other 16 million come from? That's a pretty big margin of error.

    1. Smoking Gun

      Re: "80 million people in Britain"

      Tourists?

      Dead folk?

    2. Lars Silver badge
      Happy

      Re: "80 million people in Britain"

      I suppose you are not deleted as dead, and that is as it should be as parents may tell a lot about whats "wrong" with their children, There where plans for such a database already in 1968.

      1. Gordon 10 Silver badge
        Trollface

        Re: "80 million people in Britain"

        Its the bleedin immigrants innit! Taking our jobs, NHS and damaging our well paid US globocorps.

        1. boltar Silver badge

          Re: "80 million people in Britain"

          "ts the bleedin immigrants innit! Taking our jobs, NHS"

          I realise you're being sarcastic, but go into many london hospitals and you'll be lucky to hear a british accent amongst the patients. You think they've all paid their dues in taxes?

          1. Mark 65

            Re: "80 million people in Britain"

            In this regard I like the Australian system (and only is this regard) in that you need to present your health card or you get billed

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Happy

            Re: "80 million people in Britain"

            "but go into many london hospitals and you'll be lucky to hear a british accent amongst the patients"

            "but go into London and you'll be lucky to hear a British accent"

            Fixed.

          3. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: "80 million people in Britain"

            Erm - so you're excluding the nursing staff then, also just because someone has a foreign accent doesn't mean they're not paying taxes and working here (did you ask any of them). Hope the system is a success though.

          4. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: "80 million people in Britain"

            No british accent here, after 20 years - can't shake it. And I'm pretty sure I've paid more taxes than you, sunshine. So enough of your daily-mail knee-jerk fuckwittery please.

            1. boltar Silver badge

              Re: "80 million people in Britain"

              "And I'm pretty sure I've paid more taxes than you, sunshine"

              I wouldn't lay money on that.

              "So enough of your daily-mail knee-jerk fuckwittery please."

              Predictable lefty response number 2 (after "you're a raaacissst naa naa!"). How utterly pathetic.

          5. ColinX

            Re: "80 million people in Britain"

            also lucky to hear a british accent amongst a lot of the doctors and nurses in many urban hospitals.

            This can be issue when are attempting to understand how life threatening an illness is from medical staff. I really didn't need any additional stress when my wife had our two kids, and they "forgot" to give her any food for dinner on one occasion despite her asking a number of times!

            I don't care where people come from, is the level of service I worry about!

    3. plrndl

      Re: "80 million people in Britain"

      So now we know the real number of illegal immigrants.

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Data quality?

    "It logs the non-clinical information on 80 million people in Britain"

    Er, what? This country only has a population of 64.1 million (http://ons.gov.uk/ons/taxonomy/index.html?nscl=Population)

    Surely you can't account for another ~16 million records from births/deaths turnover, duplicate records, health tourists, etc ??

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: 80 million?

      I'd imagine it includes anyone who has used the health service at any point. So that would include people who were here for 1, 2, 5, 10 (or whatever) years and then left, or people who originated here and then emigrated, etc etc. Should easily get up to 80 million that way

      1. Just Enough
        Angel

        Re: 80 million?

        It will also include dead people. Cos you can't just delete them as soon as they die. It may well contain extremely valuable data.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: 80 million?

          "It may well contain extremely valuable data."

          Indeed, it is amazing how many eager companies out there will pay GOOD MONEY for that data!

    2. Just Enough

      64.1 million

      64.1 million is the population of the UK. This is NHS England, so even less than that.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: This is NHS England ...

        So you think those "other" people won't come across the border and use a hospital at any point? or "johnny foreigner" ? they can use't NHS too.

  6. Peter Galbavy

    "Basho claimed Riak is up to two times cheaper than Oracle..."

    Good news, crap English. "Half the price" surely?

    1. Steve Channell
      Facepalm

      Re: "Basho claimed Riak is up to two times cheaper than Oracle..."

      ... so Riak must be more expensive than SQL/Server then...

      1. Timmy Cratchit
        WTF?

        Re: "Basho claimed Riak is up to two times cheaper than Oracle..."

        > ... so Riak must be more expensive than SQL/Server then...

        On the reasoning that the "cheapness" quotient of Oracle's stuff must be negative? Does seem like the only remotely coherent interpretation :-|

        Methinks English is not the author's native tongue.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: "Basho claimed Riak is up to two times cheaper than Oracle..."

          He's Irish

  7. Buzzword

    The numbers don't add up

    "It processes more than 500 complex messages a second."

    There are some 36,000 GPs in the country, seeing an average of one patient every 12 minutes; making a total of 50 patients per second. That's an order of magnitude less than the number of messages per second that the system is processing. What are all these messages?

    1. BlueGreen

      Re: The numbers don't add up @Buzzword

      I'm a little curious about the claim of the messages being 'complex', but to your main point, and I'm just guessing here, a gp could lookup patient details more than once per consultation. In addition, writing a prescription might count as one more, and that may trigger off other internal messages to check for drug allergies or suchlike (and multiple prescriptions might multiply that?), and if a patient were referred to a hospital I can well imagine that too kicking off a little cascade of internal messages.

      I repeat, just guessing but it seems possible.

    2. Cliff

      Re: The numbers don't add up

      Maybe something like main demographic data, then additional pages of detail pulled as required (eg test results), then the message push for issuing of prescription plus booking consultant follow-ups plus... well frankly 500 would be hardly a shock

      1. P. Lee Silver badge

        Re: The numbers don't add up

        I'm not that bright, but would it make sense to have a local (VM?) server at each GP office and replicate back to the centre?

        It would ease the performance requirements and reduce reliance on network infrastructure.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: The numbers don't add up

          This kind of replication between patient record systems already exists all over the place, and there are standardised protocols already designed for it (e.g. HL7). The messages are replicated via a message queue, typically RabbitMQ.

    3. Wensleydale Cheese

      Re: The numbers don't add up

      I know nothing about this system but in my doctor's surgery (not in the UK) the receptionist pulls up the patient record before the appointment to grab details, gets on with other queries and only after the appointment fetches the details again and then applies necessary updates.

      I see a minimum of three messages there, and that's before the extra lookups other posters have suggested.

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: The numbers don't add up

      It's not just GPs that generate the data, hospitals do, too. And each visit to a health professional that uses the system can generate multiple messages, e.g. referral, prescription, operation note, observation of reaction to medication, and many, many other things. Without knowing what the system covers it is impossible to tell, but in light of that 500 messages/second sounds rather low.

    5. yoganmahew

      Re: The numbers don't add up

      All the appointments start at the same time...

    6. graeme leggett

      Re: The numbers don't add up

      Some stuff will be entirely internal to the surgery system.

      A GP could have a consultation, write a prescription, book the patient back for three more visits and it could all be internal up save the prescription being sent to HSCIC for the central records eg the GP Presentation Level Prescribing Data (available for download in monthly chunks if you fancy flicking through it)

      But initiate a scan, or some tests and the messages are sure to start flying....

    7. John Smith 19 Gold badge

      Re: The numbers don't add up

      "There are some 36,000 GPs in the country, seeing an average of one patient every 12 minutes; making a total of 50 patients per second. That's an order of magnitude less than the number of messages per second that the system is processing. What are all these messages?"

      You're assuming that GP's are the only users of this system.

      How many pharmacies are there (that have a link into the system)?

      How many hospitals?

    8. Fluffy Bunny
      Boffin

      Re: The numbers don't add up

      The number of actual transactions will often be much higher than what a user thinks is a single transaction.

      And don't forget reporting requirements. Just doing a scan for suspicious behaviour will run through the entire database like a dose of salts.

    9. launcap Silver badge
      Stop

      Re: The numbers don't add up

      "It processes more than 500 complex messages a second."

      Is that all? In the late 80s/early 90s I worked for an airline CRS processing 20K entries/second of a *roughly* equivalent complexity.

      Mind you, we had a nice big S/370 (actually two - one for comms and one for agent entries) to play with and as much DASD space as you could fit in a football (UK edition) field-sized room. And a nice dark room to trap newbie tape monkeys in.

      Kids today eh? They think they invented it all...

      1. Philip Lewis

        Re: The numbers don't add up

        Precisely, not only do these children not even know what a transactiojn monitor is, they have no clue why you would even need one. They are still in the sandpit building sand castles, watching them collapse and then blaming the collapse on the type of sand and move to the next sand pit.

        It is as if 40-50 years of accumulated systems software knowledge was jettisoned when VB was invented!

        The youf of today, our future - eeeeeeeeek!

  8. Omgwtfbbqtime Silver badge
    Trollface

    Name change by deed poll to include...

    "Drop Tables"?

    1. Philip Lewis

      Re: Name change by deed poll to include...

      Obligatory XKCD

      http://xkcd.com/327/

    2. Frankee Llonnygog

      Re: Name change by deed poll to include...

      Go right ahead - you might actually have done some damage when the system ran on Oracle

      1. Shrek

        Re: Name change by deed poll to include...

        *sigh* - only if you are an incompetent developer that doesn't use bind variables to avoid SQL Injection.

        SQL Injection/Developer incompetence isn't limited to Oracle now, is it?

        1. Frankee Llonnygog

          Re: SQL Injection/Developer incompetence isn't limited to Oracle

          SQL Injection is limited to SQL

          1. Shrek

            Re: SQL Injection/Developer incompetence isn't limited to Oracle

            That may be true but I'm sure that NoSQL will have its own class of vulnerabilities when subjected to poor coding.

            The point is that poor coding is the fault, not the technology in the case highlighted. Oracle is my background so I know it is easy to prevent, I assume that it is similarly trivial in other SQL implementations to avoid SQL Injection.

            Your original point is not an Oracle problem, but a coding problem, of which I'm sure NoSQL has its own versions of such problems...

  9. Mike Bunyan

    Oracle licence

    No doubt Oracle will quickly seek redress for loss of income

  10. John Smith 19 Gold badge
    Unhappy

    Sot he £64Bn question.

    Did this system produce more productive outcomes of the NHS as a whole than having no system at all?

    Yes going to a very large open source system is a bold move by the NHS IT operation.

    But was it needed in the first place?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Sot he £64Bn question.

      From the bad comments I've heard about the original system in the press, yes a new system was definitely needed.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Sot he £64Bn question.

      So you think they should have stuck to numerous incompatible local systems?

      Prior to this they didn't even have a global NHS email system.

      1. John Smith 19 Gold badge
        Unhappy

        Re: So the £64Bn question.

        "So you think they should have stuck to numerous incompatible local systems?"

        Do you know why ARPA net (whose protocols the internet uses) was built?

        To allow researchers to at remote sites to access incompatible machines without needing multiple terminal (apparently some really did work that way) on their desks.

        And by incompatible I mean machines that could not even agree how many bits they have in a byte, or what alphabet to use.

        IOW it's all about setting up data standards, mandating that different parts of the NHS use them and letting the individual parts (and the are very individual parts in the NHS) work out how to implement them.

        So no I don't think p**sing away £15Bn to get systems to share data better was needed or good value for money.

        "Prior to this they didn't even have a global NHS email system".

        Great.

        Just a single address book to hack and you can spam the whole NHS.

        1. Jan 0

          Re: So the £64Bn question.

          I thought that internet protocols were developed so that ARPANET nodes could interact with NSFNET nodes and vice versa. I.e they weren't just ARPANET protocols, but _inter_net protocols.

  11. Sundaram

    NoSQL I thought was Not Only SQL

    AFAIK, NO-SQL also supports relational and SQL queries; apart from additional unstructured data. Can anyone who has actually worked with NoSQL confirm this please?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: NoSQL I thought was Not Only SQL

      "NO-SQL also supports relational and SQL queries; "

      Normally, no. Hence the name....

      1. Lusty

        Re: NoSQL I thought was Not Only SQL

        "Normally, no. Hence the name...."

        You mean the name which is short for "not only SQL"?

        1. Blane Bramble

          Re: NoSQL I thought was Not Only SQL

          You mean the name that has been rewritten to be short for "not only SQL" but originally meant "no SQL"?

    2. BlahBlahBlahBlahBlah

      Re: NoSQL I thought was Not Only SQL

      Different kind of querying, direct key lookup, secondary indexes, range scans etc etc

      1. Philip Lewis

        Re: NoSQL I thought was Not Only SQL

        "Different kind of querying, direct key lookup, secondary indexes, range scans etc etc"

        Errr, which commercial relational DBMS doesn't have these things?

        Nothing you mention is even remotely different or state of the art. You should perhaps familiarise yourself with how commercial relational database management systems work, and why they work that way. After you get a basic understanding of what is going on, you can then tackle query optimization, which is the actual "secret sauce" that makes things work.

        There is a class of applications for which object store style databases are appropriate, and this case might indeed have been one. It detracts not a jot from the power of the relational model (as distinct from implementations) for solving the vast majority of data base problems.

  12. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    It's okay until to fails or someone hacks it.

    It's okay getting in bedroom programmers or "yooufs" to program your stuff using the latest "cool shit", but what are you going to do when it fails?

  13. Mostor Astrakan

    Orrible...

    The problem with Oracle pricing is often not even the number of UK Dollars. It's the sheer hassle. Oracle contracts are so complex that they make the Goatish One's bids for your soul look like a picnic. Especially if you are beyond the trivial size. Oracle comes knocking if you add more CPUs to your system, if you assign more CPU capacity to your virtual machines, unless you also want to pay licenses for the VMs that you *don't* run oracle on for some reason. If your database grows beyond a certain size. If you have more users than you used to have.

    With open source solutions, you can merrily shift data from one server to the other, grow it as big as you want, for as many people as you want and nobody gives a damn.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Orrible...

      I think RedHat come knocking if you add more CPUs and that is open source. Basho come knocking if you add more nodes. Open source != free.

  14. JeffTravis

    It won't cost Oracle a cent

    Oracle pricing is based on a complex rolladex system on someone's desk. It simply states the amount in 'protection' you pay. It doesn't really matter what products you use, as it's a number that can only go up, not down.

    "What's that you say you don't need product x on 40 servers, that's fine. By the way your 'discount' on product Y has just been halved due to falling below our 'bulk buy' threshold."

    Bill before <= Bill after

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      the more you pay, the more it's worth (was re: It won't cost Oracle a cent

      I share your skepticism, but NHS no doubt has been running the numbers & picked a solid project to blaze the way.

      ACID isn't the sole domain of SQL engines, & note they avoided Berkeley DB (which is Oracle's kv db that scales) & went with a set of Erlang sol'ns.

      Oracle's racket in IT is well known & viewed with disdain amongst those who have the freedom to know better. But then the software gravy train has been marshalled by all sorts of Barnums & Ponzis, incl. CA, SCO & M$. It's all coming undone due to multicore, virtualization, big data & handhelds ( which themselves will soon sport 100x the computing power of a Intel 486). It's a great time to start a grass roots project what with the maturity of libs & languages, api & protocols, with enuf power to keep things aloft.

  15. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Larry's comeuppance is served

    Just when you thought that Erlang had given away to Go, the Ericsonian Prologists scale the walls of the Citadel. 'Let it fail' is their motto ( pass the message). This is the Zen of functional actors, & neither M$ nor Ellison's yacht fags know what to do about it.

  16. This post has been deleted by its author

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019