Re: HP's """machinations"""
So you've sold them?
24 posts • joined 27 Sep 2011
Threads, cores and sockets. They are not interchangeable.
The new restriction, if applied to , say, a T5-2 (2sockets, 16cores per socket, 8 threads per core), means I can run Oracle SE-2 on said system. However, I cannot now run two T5-2 in a 2 node RAC.
(Hmm... One would have to use a T4-1.... or something with only a single SPARC socket...
"When licensing Oracle programs with Standard Edition One, Standard Edition 2 or Standard Edition in the product name, a processor is counted equivalent to a socket; however, in the case of multi-chip modules, each chip in the multi-chip module is counted as one occupied socket. "
There, clear as daylight, right?
"Oracle Database Standard Edition 2 may only be licensed on servers that have a maximum capacity of 2 sockets. When used with Oracle Real Application Clusters, Oracle Database Standard Edition 2 may only be licensed on a maximum of 2 one-socket servers. In addition, notwithstanding any provision in Your Oracle license agreement to the contrary, each Oracle Database Standard Edition 2 database may use a maximum of 16 CPU threads at any time. When used with Oracle Real Application Clusters, each Oracle Database Standard Edition 2 database may use a maximum of 8 CPU threads per instance at any time. The minimums when licensing by Named User Plus (NUP) metric are 10 NUP licenses per server."
It's not restricted to "2 threads"
i would like to see less reliance on Middle East oil, and for that reason alone, an alternative energy source to power personal transportation is welcomed.
I just do not see that moving from oil to electricity is going to be cheaper in the long run; the increase in electricity generation will require significant investment in generation and delivery capabilities. Once the switch is made, the cost will increase as that is where companies and governments will extract their fees.
Am I the only person here who remembers "Virtuality" (the UK company launched with a valuation of £80m back in the '90s) that produced, amongst various products, a VR headset?
Odd that these two US companies are slugging it out; I wonder if a third will enter the fray and scoop the prize from their grasp.
(I invested, lost it all)
If sold to an oil sheik, Russian oligarch or premiership footballer, then cheap at half the price. What other way is there to extract money from these people so as to ensure that funds spread downwards through society?
When individuals horde their wealth, we all become poorer as a consequence. I say double the price.
What gets me is that, here we have an individual that chose to work in the security industry within both the CIA and NSA and yet is concerned by both organisations activities even though both are known for what they are.
How did he pass vetting? Was it his intention to infiltrate from the beginning? If one signs the official secrets act (or the US equivalent) then this is binding and any contravention is seen as breaking the law.
Unless there is a cast iron commercial agreement stating that software vendor X will support hardware vendor Y's chip set, isn't it up to X to decide what platforms its software will run on?
I always thought software companies chose hardware platforms on the likelihood that someone would actually buy both the hardware and the software; if no one buys the hardware, why would I care about the software?
I can't sue Sainsbury's simply because they stop selling my favorite product; I'd need a contract to be able to do that.
"The government has convinced the CESG, which sets security standards in government, to address this issue with a statement saying open source as a category is no more or less secure than closed proprietary software."
What makes you believe that CESG thinks *any* software is secure? All this says is that CESG will apply the same rigorous standards irrespective of where the software originates, it says nothing in favour of open source derived software.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019