<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_29_2033230</id>
	<title>AMD's 12-Core Chip Cuts Software Licensing Costs</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1269852900000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>CWmike writes <i>"AMD released on Monday its 12-core chip <a href="http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9173896/Retailer\_leaks\_details\_on\_AMD\_s\_upcoming\_12\_core\_chips">code-named Magny-Cours</a>, doubling the number of cores over the previous-generation Opteron chip. While a doubling of performance is nice, <a href="http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9174306/AMD\_s\_12\_core\_chip\_may\_cut\_software\_costs">another key benefit delivered by a chip with a dozen cores may be in reducing software costs</a>. For Matt Lavallee, director of technology at MLS Property Information Network, a company that supplies real estate data, upgrading to the 12-core Opteron chip from his current quad-core chips will allow him to cut the number of servers &mdash; and his software licensing fees. While the 12-core chip costs a little more than an eight-core chip, it's 'nowhere near as much as a SQL server costs,' said Lavallee, who has been beta-testing the new chips. MLS operates 60 servers, and Lavallee said he could theoretically cut the number of servers by half but will likely reduce his server count by a third with the chip upgrade."</i>
Reader adeelershad82 adds that AMD is hoping the new Opterons will <a href="http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2361926,00.asp">compete with Intel in the high-volume server market</a>.</htmltext>
<tokenext>CWmike writes " AMD released on Monday its 12-core chip code-named Magny-Cours , doubling the number of cores over the previous-generation Opteron chip .
While a doubling of performance is nice , another key benefit delivered by a chip with a dozen cores may be in reducing software costs .
For Matt Lavallee , director of technology at MLS Property Information Network , a company that supplies real estate data , upgrading to the 12-core Opteron chip from his current quad-core chips will allow him to cut the number of servers    and his software licensing fees .
While the 12-core chip costs a little more than an eight-core chip , it 's 'nowhere near as much as a SQL server costs, ' said Lavallee , who has been beta-testing the new chips .
MLS operates 60 servers , and Lavallee said he could theoretically cut the number of servers by half but will likely reduce his server count by a third with the chip upgrade .
" Reader adeelershad82 adds that AMD is hoping the new Opterons will compete with Intel in the high-volume server market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CWmike writes "AMD released on Monday its 12-core chip code-named Magny-Cours, doubling the number of cores over the previous-generation Opteron chip.
While a doubling of performance is nice, another key benefit delivered by a chip with a dozen cores may be in reducing software costs.
For Matt Lavallee, director of technology at MLS Property Information Network, a company that supplies real estate data, upgrading to the 12-core Opteron chip from his current quad-core chips will allow him to cut the number of servers — and his software licensing fees.
While the 12-core chip costs a little more than an eight-core chip, it's 'nowhere near as much as a SQL server costs,' said Lavallee, who has been beta-testing the new chips.
MLS operates 60 servers, and Lavallee said he could theoretically cut the number of servers by half but will likely reduce his server count by a third with the chip upgrade.
"
Reader adeelershad82 adds that AMD is hoping the new Opterons will compete with Intel in the high-volume server market.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662492</id>
	<title>Re:Per-core licensing?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269858000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The last time I priced out Oracle software it was $X per CPU for the first core on a physical package and then $X/2 for each core after that. So a 12 core CPU over 2X 6 core CPUS would basically save you half a CPU license.  Which given Oracle's pricing, could be a whole heck of a lot.</p><p>That was a few years back, so it may be different now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The last time I priced out Oracle software it was $ X per CPU for the first core on a physical package and then $ X/2 for each core after that .
So a 12 core CPU over 2X 6 core CPUS would basically save you half a CPU license .
Which given Oracle 's pricing , could be a whole heck of a lot.That was a few years back , so it may be different now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The last time I priced out Oracle software it was $X per CPU for the first core on a physical package and then $X/2 for each core after that.
So a 12 core CPU over 2X 6 core CPUS would basically save you half a CPU license.
Which given Oracle's pricing, could be a whole heck of a lot.That was a few years back, so it may be different now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662226</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662538</id>
	<title>Re:ever heard of MySQL?</title>
	<author>GNUALMAFUERTE</author>
	<datestamp>1269858240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You have to understand the mindset behind this kind of people.</p><p>They use a privative SQL server, but that's not it. They also use a privative OS, CMS, ERP, etc,etc.</p><p>You'll find people that use either mostly Free Software, or mostly privative software. 50\% / 50\% or other rational "whatever fits" scenarios are hard to come by. People either believe that Free Software is a better alternative, or they believe that having a big soulless corporation behind their software means they'll get better software.</p><p>Also, many companies have managers and techies that know nothing but windows, ASP and MsSQL and are scared of changing anything.</p><p>People usually complain about Free Software zealots using nothing but GPLed software, but there are privative software zealots out there too, and they don't analyze their options either, they just compulsively buy the most expensive option from $VENDOR.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You have to understand the mindset behind this kind of people.They use a privative SQL server , but that 's not it .
They also use a privative OS , CMS , ERP , etc,etc.You 'll find people that use either mostly Free Software , or mostly privative software .
50 \ % / 50 \ % or other rational " whatever fits " scenarios are hard to come by .
People either believe that Free Software is a better alternative , or they believe that having a big soulless corporation behind their software means they 'll get better software.Also , many companies have managers and techies that know nothing but windows , ASP and MsSQL and are scared of changing anything.People usually complain about Free Software zealots using nothing but GPLed software , but there are privative software zealots out there too , and they do n't analyze their options either , they just compulsively buy the most expensive option from $ VENDOR .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have to understand the mindset behind this kind of people.They use a privative SQL server, but that's not it.
They also use a privative OS, CMS, ERP, etc,etc.You'll find people that use either mostly Free Software, or mostly privative software.
50\% / 50\% or other rational "whatever fits" scenarios are hard to come by.
People either believe that Free Software is a better alternative, or they believe that having a big soulless corporation behind their software means they'll get better software.Also, many companies have managers and techies that know nothing but windows, ASP and MsSQL and are scared of changing anything.People usually complain about Free Software zealots using nothing but GPLed software, but there are privative software zealots out there too, and they don't analyze their options either, they just compulsively buy the most expensive option from $VENDOR.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662306</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31667866</id>
	<title>deacreasing costs with OpenSource</title>
	<author>mAriuZ</author>
	<datestamp>1269943320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would replace the oracle/mssql (+windows) monsters with better alternatives<br>like Ubuntu/Debian (or insert your preferred distro ) with an open source SQL database like Firebird , postgresql or mysql</p><p>i would really need a 12 core monster for my servers and with Firebird Classic or with SupperClassic<br><a href="http://www.sinatica.com/blog/en/index.php/articles/firebird-superserver-classicserver-or-superclassic" title="sinatica.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.sinatica.com/blog/en/index.php/articles/firebird-superserver-classicserver-or-superclassic</a> [sinatica.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would replace the oracle/mssql ( + windows ) monsters with better alternativeslike Ubuntu/Debian ( or insert your preferred distro ) with an open source SQL database like Firebird , postgresql or mysqli would really need a 12 core monster for my servers and with Firebird Classic or with SupperClassichttp : //www.sinatica.com/blog/en/index.php/articles/firebird-superserver-classicserver-or-superclassic [ sinatica.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would replace the oracle/mssql (+windows) monsters with better alternativeslike Ubuntu/Debian (or insert your preferred distro ) with an open source SQL database like Firebird , postgresql or mysqli would really need a 12 core monster for my servers and with Firebird Classic or with SupperClassichttp://www.sinatica.com/blog/en/index.php/articles/firebird-superserver-classicserver-or-superclassic [sinatica.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31665004</id>
	<title>Re:Software Licensing Costs?</title>
	<author>afidel</author>
	<datestamp>1269871320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes because my Oracle and Mentor Graphics software running on Linux is free.....</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes because my Oracle and Mentor Graphics software running on Linux is free.... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes because my Oracle and Mentor Graphics software running on Linux is free.....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662454</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31664960</id>
	<title>Re:Why are these companies charging more?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269871020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When the processor speed was just increasing, most companies would keep using separate servers and benefit from the performance improvements in the applications, with no revenue implications for vendors. However with virtualization and large core counts, consolidation means that count of infrastructure servers like database servers goes down, and therefore licencing revenue drops significantly with per-socket licencing. So the companies changed their licencing model to keep revenues stable. Their alternative choice would have been to significantly increase the price per socket for everyone, making the software seem much more expensive, or take a big hit on revenue and profit.</p><p>Companies have to pay salaries for R&amp;D, not to mention executive bonuses. Thing is, as someone else pointed out, virtualization is still a big win for the companies that do it, just from the point of view of power savings and data center space optimization. The same was true when 20ft long discrete ECL mainframes got replaced with single racks of CMOS microprocessor-based superminis.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When the processor speed was just increasing , most companies would keep using separate servers and benefit from the performance improvements in the applications , with no revenue implications for vendors .
However with virtualization and large core counts , consolidation means that count of infrastructure servers like database servers goes down , and therefore licencing revenue drops significantly with per-socket licencing .
So the companies changed their licencing model to keep revenues stable .
Their alternative choice would have been to significantly increase the price per socket for everyone , making the software seem much more expensive , or take a big hit on revenue and profit.Companies have to pay salaries for R&amp;D , not to mention executive bonuses .
Thing is , as someone else pointed out , virtualization is still a big win for the companies that do it , just from the point of view of power savings and data center space optimization .
The same was true when 20ft long discrete ECL mainframes got replaced with single racks of CMOS microprocessor-based superminis .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When the processor speed was just increasing, most companies would keep using separate servers and benefit from the performance improvements in the applications, with no revenue implications for vendors.
However with virtualization and large core counts, consolidation means that count of infrastructure servers like database servers goes down, and therefore licencing revenue drops significantly with per-socket licencing.
So the companies changed their licencing model to keep revenues stable.
Their alternative choice would have been to significantly increase the price per socket for everyone, making the software seem much more expensive, or take a big hit on revenue and profit.Companies have to pay salaries for R&amp;D, not to mention executive bonuses.
Thing is, as someone else pointed out, virtualization is still a big win for the companies that do it, just from the point of view of power savings and data center space optimization.
The same was true when 20ft long discrete ECL mainframes got replaced with single racks of CMOS microprocessor-based superminis.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31663292</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31664810</id>
	<title>Re:Naming scheme...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269870300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're in America frenchy.  It's pronounced '12 Mangey Cores' here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're in America frenchy .
It 's pronounced '12 Mangey Cores ' here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're in America frenchy.
It's pronounced '12 Mangey Cores' here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662420</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31664314</id>
	<title>Re:SQL Server is CPU bound?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269867540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This was historically true.  While it may still be mostly true today, I've found some major exceptions.  We have a substantial database for which we've had on-and-off performance problems.  It's a matter of software design and that design is out of our control.  Believe me we've tried!</p><p>We wound up doing doing what nearly everyone these days does, which is to throw hardware at the problem.  Specifically, memory, and a lot of memory.  What this did was to cache nearly the entire database to RAM and the server immediately shifted from being I/O bound to CPU bound.</p><p>That's where this system sits today.  We use an all 64-bit environment in order to gain support for vast reservoirs of RAM and the database is CPU bound as a result.  Now when we need to make the system faster, we add memory to account for the organic growth of the database, but the main thing is adding more (and more powerful) CPU's and cores.</p><p>Fortunately the system is sufficiently parallel capable that the additional cores are making a difference.  When we get up into the realm of dozens of cores, who knows?  Some systems have the fine-grained parallelism needed to make this work.  I suspect that everyone is working on this problem though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This was historically true .
While it may still be mostly true today , I 've found some major exceptions .
We have a substantial database for which we 've had on-and-off performance problems .
It 's a matter of software design and that design is out of our control .
Believe me we 've tried ! We wound up doing doing what nearly everyone these days does , which is to throw hardware at the problem .
Specifically , memory , and a lot of memory .
What this did was to cache nearly the entire database to RAM and the server immediately shifted from being I/O bound to CPU bound.That 's where this system sits today .
We use an all 64-bit environment in order to gain support for vast reservoirs of RAM and the database is CPU bound as a result .
Now when we need to make the system faster , we add memory to account for the organic growth of the database , but the main thing is adding more ( and more powerful ) CPU 's and cores.Fortunately the system is sufficiently parallel capable that the additional cores are making a difference .
When we get up into the realm of dozens of cores , who knows ?
Some systems have the fine-grained parallelism needed to make this work .
I suspect that everyone is working on this problem though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This was historically true.
While it may still be mostly true today, I've found some major exceptions.
We have a substantial database for which we've had on-and-off performance problems.
It's a matter of software design and that design is out of our control.
Believe me we've tried!We wound up doing doing what nearly everyone these days does, which is to throw hardware at the problem.
Specifically, memory, and a lot of memory.
What this did was to cache nearly the entire database to RAM and the server immediately shifted from being I/O bound to CPU bound.That's where this system sits today.
We use an all 64-bit environment in order to gain support for vast reservoirs of RAM and the database is CPU bound as a result.
Now when we need to make the system faster, we add memory to account for the organic growth of the database, but the main thing is adding more (and more powerful) CPU's and cores.Fortunately the system is sufficiently parallel capable that the additional cores are making a difference.
When we get up into the realm of dozens of cores, who knows?
Some systems have the fine-grained parallelism needed to make this work.
I suspect that everyone is working on this problem though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662346</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662842</id>
	<title>Re:Naming scheme...</title>
	<author>QuantumRiff</author>
	<datestamp>1269859680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would have preferred Mangy Cores..</p><p>Seems a bit more "dirty" like its a scrappy street fighter..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would have preferred Mangy Cores..Seems a bit more " dirty " like its a scrappy street fighter. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would have preferred Mangy Cores..Seems a bit more "dirty" like its a scrappy street fighter..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662420</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31663690</id>
	<title>Re:Naming scheme...</title>
	<author>master811</author>
	<datestamp>1269864300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually they are named after F1 tracks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually they are named after F1 tracks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually they are named after F1 tracks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662420</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31665926</id>
	<title>No chance in hell that the software manufacturers</title>
	<author>barfy</author>
	<datestamp>1269878220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>will respond with new licensing schemes...   Not a chance in hell.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>will respond with new licensing schemes... Not a chance in hell .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>will respond with new licensing schemes...   Not a chance in hell.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662140</id>
	<title>Per-core licensing?</title>
	<author>bynary</author>
	<datestamp>1269856560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Has MS updated their licensing to be "per-core" instead of "per-CPU"?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Has MS updated their licensing to be " per-core " instead of " per-CPU " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Has MS updated their licensing to be "per-core" instead of "per-CPU"?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31663218</id>
	<title>Re:Per-core licensing?</title>
	<author>Mordok-DestroyerOfWo</author>
	<datestamp>1269861780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Shhhhhhhhhhhh!

Don't give them any ideas!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Shhhhhhhhhhhh !
Do n't give them any ideas !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shhhhhhhhhhhh!
Don't give them any ideas!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662410</id>
	<title>Re:Cry me a MS licensing costs river!</title>
	<author>rraylion</author>
	<datestamp>1269857700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are right the licensing cost will not change -- but as you wait for knew advancement/ innovation to filter down to open source can you effectively price the cost you incuur by not know the gains of the other side... SQL server is solid<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... and Oracle is just as good if not hands down better<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... and as those two companies innovate and create new funtionality and robustness to their product lines how long will it take for postgress to catch them??</p><p>And the fee for linux is the cost of the admins -- the people who are good in the environment know they are good and their price goes up every year -- it takes about three years to become really proficient at most MS products - it might take half a year to really understand the linux environment and methodology if you are unfamiliar and then another 4 - 5 to gain that same profiencency equivalent.</p><p>What I will give the person who goes the linux route is that once you are profiecient in Linux - gaining the same proficeincy in other systems is cake - basically because the they are just easier to use in the first place.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are right the licensing cost will not change -- but as you wait for knew advancement/ innovation to filter down to open source can you effectively price the cost you incuur by not know the gains of the other side... SQL server is solid ... and Oracle is just as good if not hands down better ... and as those two companies innovate and create new funtionality and robustness to their product lines how long will it take for postgress to catch them ?
? And the fee for linux is the cost of the admins -- the people who are good in the environment know they are good and their price goes up every year -- it takes about three years to become really proficient at most MS products - it might take half a year to really understand the linux environment and methodology if you are unfamiliar and then another 4 - 5 to gain that same profiencency equivalent.What I will give the person who goes the linux route is that once you are profiecient in Linux - gaining the same proficeincy in other systems is cake - basically because the they are just easier to use in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are right the licensing cost will not change -- but as you wait for knew advancement/ innovation to filter down to open source can you effectively price the cost you incuur by not know the gains of the other side... SQL server is solid ... and Oracle is just as good if not hands down better ... and as those two companies innovate and create new funtionality and robustness to their product lines how long will it take for postgress to catch them?
?And the fee for linux is the cost of the admins -- the people who are good in the environment know they are good and their price goes up every year -- it takes about three years to become really proficient at most MS products - it might take half a year to really understand the linux environment and methodology if you are unfamiliar and then another 4 - 5 to gain that same profiencency equivalent.What I will give the person who goes the linux route is that once you are profiecient in Linux - gaining the same proficeincy in other systems is cake - basically because the they are just easier to use in the first place.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662150</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662550</id>
	<title>Re:Cry me a MS licensing costs river!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269858240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>but as you wait for knew advancement/ innovation to filter down to open source</i></p><p>I can do everything MLS does with open source technology and I could do it cheaper and faster and without worrying about retarded "per-core" licensing.  As soon as someone uses the word "innovation" to replace "value" then you know they are talking out of their ass.  Open Source servers are a SOLVED PROBLEM, one need only ask actual leading edge companies like Google, Facebook, and even Slashdot how they can handle millions and billions of users without expensive licenses for proprietary software.</p><p><i>the fee for linux is the cost of the admins</i></p><p>Yes because Windows admins are free.  Can I have some of what you are smoking?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>but as you wait for knew advancement/ innovation to filter down to open sourceI can do everything MLS does with open source technology and I could do it cheaper and faster and without worrying about retarded " per-core " licensing .
As soon as someone uses the word " innovation " to replace " value " then you know they are talking out of their ass .
Open Source servers are a SOLVED PROBLEM , one need only ask actual leading edge companies like Google , Facebook , and even Slashdot how they can handle millions and billions of users without expensive licenses for proprietary software.the fee for linux is the cost of the adminsYes because Windows admins are free .
Can I have some of what you are smoking ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but as you wait for knew advancement/ innovation to filter down to open sourceI can do everything MLS does with open source technology and I could do it cheaper and faster and without worrying about retarded "per-core" licensing.
As soon as someone uses the word "innovation" to replace "value" then you know they are talking out of their ass.
Open Source servers are a SOLVED PROBLEM, one need only ask actual leading edge companies like Google, Facebook, and even Slashdot how they can handle millions and billions of users without expensive licenses for proprietary software.the fee for linux is the cost of the adminsYes because Windows admins are free.
Can I have some of what you are smoking?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662410</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31663292</id>
	<title>Why are these companies charging more?</title>
	<author>PhrstBrn</author>
	<datestamp>1269862140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I really don't understand why these companies insist on changing from a Per-Socket to a Per-Core pricing scheme.</p><p>For years everything was single cores, and every 18 months the performance has doubled and the number of cores stayed the same.  Yet licensing was still done per socket.</p><p>Now that the performance per-core is coming closer to a brick wall (per-core performance has gotten better over the years, but it's not doubling every 18 months anymore) the only way the chip makers can keep improving performance to pack more cores onto the die.  How is the situation today different than it was 5 years ago when dual core processors took off?  It reeks a lot of "dying-business-model-must-squeeze-every-penny-while-we-still-can".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I really do n't understand why these companies insist on changing from a Per-Socket to a Per-Core pricing scheme.For years everything was single cores , and every 18 months the performance has doubled and the number of cores stayed the same .
Yet licensing was still done per socket.Now that the performance per-core is coming closer to a brick wall ( per-core performance has gotten better over the years , but it 's not doubling every 18 months anymore ) the only way the chip makers can keep improving performance to pack more cores onto the die .
How is the situation today different than it was 5 years ago when dual core processors took off ?
It reeks a lot of " dying-business-model-must-squeeze-every-penny-while-we-still-can " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really don't understand why these companies insist on changing from a Per-Socket to a Per-Core pricing scheme.For years everything was single cores, and every 18 months the performance has doubled and the number of cores stayed the same.
Yet licensing was still done per socket.Now that the performance per-core is coming closer to a brick wall (per-core performance has gotten better over the years, but it's not doubling every 18 months anymore) the only way the chip makers can keep improving performance to pack more cores onto the die.
How is the situation today different than it was 5 years ago when dual core processors took off?
It reeks a lot of "dying-business-model-must-squeeze-every-penny-while-we-still-can".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662704</id>
	<title>Re:Naming scheme...</title>
	<author>symbolset</author>
	<datestamp>1269858900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>AMD commercial server CPUs are named after Formula 1 racing tracks.  Their server platforms are named for Ferrari facilities.  Their desktop processors are named after stars, and the desktop platforms after constellations.  <a href="http://www.brightsideofnews.com/news/2009/5/1/amd-opteron2c-phenom-codenames-explained.aspx" title="brightsideofnews.com" rel="nofollow">Cite</a> [brightsideofnews.com].</htmltext>
<tokenext>AMD commercial server CPUs are named after Formula 1 racing tracks .
Their server platforms are named for Ferrari facilities .
Their desktop processors are named after stars , and the desktop platforms after constellations .
Cite [ brightsideofnews.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AMD commercial server CPUs are named after Formula 1 racing tracks.
Their server platforms are named for Ferrari facilities.
Their desktop processors are named after stars, and the desktop platforms after constellations.
Cite [brightsideofnews.com].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662420</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31667438</id>
	<title>Re:Per-core licensing?</title>
	<author>cerberusss</author>
	<datestamp>1269981360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Which given Oracle's pricing, could be a whole heck of a lot.</p></div><p>I once heard a VP saying something like the following: "Today, the Oracle salesguy is coming to wrap up the licensing. I've cleared my complete schedule for today for the negotiations. It's worth it. I never save so much money on a day as when negotiating with Oracle."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Which given Oracle 's pricing , could be a whole heck of a lot.I once heard a VP saying something like the following : " Today , the Oracle salesguy is coming to wrap up the licensing .
I 've cleared my complete schedule for today for the negotiations .
It 's worth it .
I never save so much money on a day as when negotiating with Oracle .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which given Oracle's pricing, could be a whole heck of a lot.I once heard a VP saying something like the following: "Today, the Oracle salesguy is coming to wrap up the licensing.
I've cleared my complete schedule for today for the negotiations.
It's worth it.
I never save so much money on a day as when negotiating with Oracle.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662492</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31666632</id>
	<title>Re:ever heard of MySQL?</title>
	<author>RightSaidFred99</author>
	<datestamp>1269885540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Huh?  I see you've stated what you consider an opinion, but amazingly it's factually incorrect.  I don't know how you did it.  It would be like me saying "Red is the best color" but still somehow being completely wrong on an objective basis.</p><p>Just about the only thing MySql has going for it over SQL Server is that it's free.  This, and an uninformed cadre of fanbois out pretending it's better than industrial strength commercial products.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Huh ?
I see you 've stated what you consider an opinion , but amazingly it 's factually incorrect .
I do n't know how you did it .
It would be like me saying " Red is the best color " but still somehow being completely wrong on an objective basis.Just about the only thing MySql has going for it over SQL Server is that it 's free .
This , and an uninformed cadre of fanbois out pretending it 's better than industrial strength commercial products .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Huh?
I see you've stated what you consider an opinion, but amazingly it's factually incorrect.
I don't know how you did it.
It would be like me saying "Red is the best color" but still somehow being completely wrong on an objective basis.Just about the only thing MySql has going for it over SQL Server is that it's free.
This, and an uninformed cadre of fanbois out pretending it's better than industrial strength commercial products.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662306</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31666276</id>
	<title>intel has a powerful cpu (on a per core basis)</title>
	<author>john\_uy</author>
	<datestamp>1269881640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>it's amazing that intel has improved the speed of the their cores twice that of amd. amd now has to compete by putting two cores for intel's single core. now if intel would actually package 12 cores in a single cpu (much like the core2 quad days,) then that would kill amd. of course, intel wouldn't do this since they are doing well and enjoying very very big margins compared to amd.</p><p>this has been an exciting week, it's amd vs intel on the cpu side and now nvidia and amd on the graphics side with the release of fermi. this week has been a fast one! kudos to them and hope they continue to make better products so we can all benefit from it.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>it 's amazing that intel has improved the speed of the their cores twice that of amd .
amd now has to compete by putting two cores for intel 's single core .
now if intel would actually package 12 cores in a single cpu ( much like the core2 quad days , ) then that would kill amd .
of course , intel would n't do this since they are doing well and enjoying very very big margins compared to amd.this has been an exciting week , it 's amd vs intel on the cpu side and now nvidia and amd on the graphics side with the release of fermi .
this week has been a fast one !
kudos to them and hope they continue to make better products so we can all benefit from it .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it's amazing that intel has improved the speed of the their cores twice that of amd.
amd now has to compete by putting two cores for intel's single core.
now if intel would actually package 12 cores in a single cpu (much like the core2 quad days,) then that would kill amd.
of course, intel wouldn't do this since they are doing well and enjoying very very big margins compared to amd.this has been an exciting week, it's amd vs intel on the cpu side and now nvidia and amd on the graphics side with the release of fermi.
this week has been a fast one!
kudos to them and hope they continue to make better products so we can all benefit from it.
:)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31665908</id>
	<title>too simple</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269878040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>too far</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>too far</tokentext>
<sentencetext>too far</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662618</id>
	<title>Re:Cry me a MS licensing costs river!</title>
	<author>h4rr4r</author>
	<datestamp>1269858540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Postgres is already better than SQL server, Oracle is were the competition might be. Except Oracle is just so damn expensive. Postgres 9 will add lots of nice new features.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Postgres is already better than SQL server , Oracle is were the competition might be .
Except Oracle is just so damn expensive .
Postgres 9 will add lots of nice new features .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Postgres is already better than SQL server, Oracle is were the competition might be.
Except Oracle is just so damn expensive.
Postgres 9 will add lots of nice new features.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662410</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31664072</id>
	<title>virtualization and cloud is where it's going</title>
	<author>CPE1704TKS</author>
	<datestamp>1269866460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sure you can get more threads and CPUs for your SQL Server, but eventually it's going to be a cloud like environment where there will be massively partitions, very small databases, each using up 1 virtual CPU.  Massive monolithic databases are how things are right now, but in the future, things like CPUs or cores will be foreign concepts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure you can get more threads and CPUs for your SQL Server , but eventually it 's going to be a cloud like environment where there will be massively partitions , very small databases , each using up 1 virtual CPU .
Massive monolithic databases are how things are right now , but in the future , things like CPUs or cores will be foreign concepts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure you can get more threads and CPUs for your SQL Server, but eventually it's going to be a cloud like environment where there will be massively partitions, very small databases, each using up 1 virtual CPU.
Massive monolithic databases are how things are right now, but in the future, things like CPUs or cores will be foreign concepts.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662754</id>
	<title>Hmmm... will they create a SSD surcharge?</title>
	<author>WoTG</author>
	<datestamp>1269859200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Huh, good point... I wonder if down the road you'll have to pay more for DB licenses that run on SSDs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Huh , good point... I wonder if down the road you 'll have to pay more for DB licenses that run on SSDs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Huh, good point... I wonder if down the road you'll have to pay more for DB licenses that run on SSDs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662346</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662302</id>
	<title>Re:Only until</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269857280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oracle already do charge per core</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oracle already do charge per core</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oracle already do charge per core</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662726</id>
	<title>Re:oh geeze....</title>
	<author>WhatAmIDoingHere</author>
	<datestamp>1269859020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>As computers get faster, software becomes more bloated and runs slower.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As computers get faster , software becomes more bloated and runs slower .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As computers get faster, software becomes more bloated and runs slower.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662200</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31664410</id>
	<title>4, 8... 12 cores?</title>
	<author>tmp31416</author>
	<datestamp>1269868080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>well, this is nice to jack up the number of cores, but what about access to memory and other system resources?  is hyper-transport getting "fatter" to allow more concurrent access to ram and such, i.e. will each core have a dedicated access to memory, for example?</p><p>maybe i'm just not getting it ("you're too old, go back to your punched cards", yada yada yada), but what's the point of upping the number of cores on a die if too many of them have to wait in line to access resources?</p><p>we're still dealing with micros, here, not mainframes.  there are still echoes of the original bone-headed ibm 5150 design that have to be maintained for software to run.  it's not as if we can go with a radical re-architecturing of the "wintel" microcomputer to accommodate these new multi-core cpus.  so how do "they" go about it to ensure we are indeed getting more performance and not some hobbled design pretending it is faster?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>well , this is nice to jack up the number of cores , but what about access to memory and other system resources ?
is hyper-transport getting " fatter " to allow more concurrent access to ram and such , i.e .
will each core have a dedicated access to memory , for example ? maybe i 'm just not getting it ( " you 're too old , go back to your punched cards " , yada yada yada ) , but what 's the point of upping the number of cores on a die if too many of them have to wait in line to access resources ? we 're still dealing with micros , here , not mainframes .
there are still echoes of the original bone-headed ibm 5150 design that have to be maintained for software to run .
it 's not as if we can go with a radical re-architecturing of the " wintel " microcomputer to accommodate these new multi-core cpus .
so how do " they " go about it to ensure we are indeed getting more performance and not some hobbled design pretending it is faster ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>well, this is nice to jack up the number of cores, but what about access to memory and other system resources?
is hyper-transport getting "fatter" to allow more concurrent access to ram and such, i.e.
will each core have a dedicated access to memory, for example?maybe i'm just not getting it ("you're too old, go back to your punched cards", yada yada yada), but what's the point of upping the number of cores on a die if too many of them have to wait in line to access resources?we're still dealing with micros, here, not mainframes.
there are still echoes of the original bone-headed ibm 5150 design that have to be maintained for software to run.
it's not as if we can go with a radical re-architecturing of the "wintel" microcomputer to accommodate these new multi-core cpus.
so how do "they" go about it to ensure we are indeed getting more performance and not some hobbled design pretending it is faster?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662184</id>
	<title>What this says actually...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269856740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is that software licensing is a rip off to begin with.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is that software licensing is a rip off to begin with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is that software licensing is a rip off to begin with.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31664292</id>
	<title>Re:SQL Server is CPU bound?</title>
	<author>guruevi</author>
	<datestamp>1269867480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But when they do get CPU-bound, you have serious problems. I don't know if things changed since 2000/2003 but I remember very well when 6 geographically separated, load-balanced MSSQL boxes (with 8 cores each back then - very costly setup) hit the CPU bound, they all became unresponsive for a couple of seconds (dropped down to 0\% CPU), came back, did a few thousand queries and then repeated the cycle every 5 seconds.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But when they do get CPU-bound , you have serious problems .
I do n't know if things changed since 2000/2003 but I remember very well when 6 geographically separated , load-balanced MSSQL boxes ( with 8 cores each back then - very costly setup ) hit the CPU bound , they all became unresponsive for a couple of seconds ( dropped down to 0 \ % CPU ) , came back , did a few thousand queries and then repeated the cycle every 5 seconds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But when they do get CPU-bound, you have serious problems.
I don't know if things changed since 2000/2003 but I remember very well when 6 geographically separated, load-balanced MSSQL boxes (with 8 cores each back then - very costly setup) hit the CPU bound, they all became unresponsive for a couple of seconds (dropped down to 0\% CPU), came back, did a few thousand queries and then repeated the cycle every 5 seconds.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662346</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31744858</id>
	<title>Re:But will it run...</title>
	<author>Thundersnatch</author>
	<datestamp>1270489140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most common server-based applications <i>are</i> embarrassingly parallel, so long as user interaction is involved. Multiple users = multiple threads. If your server application isn't parallel, you're doing something really wrong in your code, or doing something pretty uncommon.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most common server-based applications are embarrassingly parallel , so long as user interaction is involved .
Multiple users = multiple threads .
If your server application is n't parallel , you 're doing something really wrong in your code , or doing something pretty uncommon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most common server-based applications are embarrassingly parallel, so long as user interaction is involved.
Multiple users = multiple threads.
If your server application isn't parallel, you're doing something really wrong in your code, or doing something pretty uncommon.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662460</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31664582</id>
	<title>Re:Software Licensing Costs?</title>
	<author>G00F</author>
	<datestamp>1269868980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ya, because Unix(*Nix) software never chargers per user, CPU, or desired speed.</p><p>Sure your are trying to be funny, but you also wrong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ya , because Unix ( * Nix ) software never chargers per user , CPU , or desired speed.Sure your are trying to be funny , but you also wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ya, because Unix(*Nix) software never chargers per user, CPU, or desired speed.Sure your are trying to be funny, but you also wrong.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662454</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31663822</id>
	<title>Yay...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269865020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...for Moore's Law.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...for Moore 's Law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...for Moore's Law.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31666766</id>
	<title>I am somehow reminded of this...</title>
	<author>Deviant</author>
	<datestamp>1269886980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.theonion.com/articles/fuck-everything-were-doing-five-blades,11056/" title="theonion.com">http://www.theonion.com/articles/fuck-everything-were-doing-five-blades,11056/</a> [theonion.com]</p><p>Just replace blades with cores...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.theonion.com/articles/fuck-everything-were-doing-five-blades,11056/ [ theonion.com ] Just replace blades with cores.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.theonion.com/articles/fuck-everything-were-doing-five-blades,11056/ [theonion.com]Just replace blades with cores...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31664932</id>
	<title>Re:Per-core licensing?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269870900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft's formula is simpler = (Milk the crap out of as many people as you can)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft 's formula is simpler = ( Milk the crap out of as many people as you can )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft's formula is simpler = (Milk the crap out of as many people as you can)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31663628</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662290</id>
	<title>Opposite problem with Oracle licensing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269857220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They license per-core, so more cores per CPU can be more costly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They license per-core , so more cores per CPU can be more costly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They license per-core, so more cores per CPU can be more costly.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31663336</id>
	<title>Re:Cry me a MS licensing costs river!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269862440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Cry me a MS licensing costs river!<br>Fair enough, but my Linux licensing costs won't change!</p></div><p>Hate to be the first to point this out, but Microsoft does not make Oracle.</p><p>And if you are running Oracle and your costs don't change based on how many CPU/cores you run it on, EVEN ON LINUX, you are basically running unlicensed software.</p><p>Or did you just ignore the fact they said SQL fee and not Windows fee.</p><p>and speaking of the article, it is referencing a huge company (Thus why Oracle fees are OK when compared to the other non-options of less cost)<br>Pirating software in a huge company is very not wise.  I can't believe you would suggest it!  You did mention it because you were suggesting a solution right?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Cry me a MS licensing costs river ! Fair enough , but my Linux licensing costs wo n't change ! Hate to be the first to point this out , but Microsoft does not make Oracle.And if you are running Oracle and your costs do n't change based on how many CPU/cores you run it on , EVEN ON LINUX , you are basically running unlicensed software.Or did you just ignore the fact they said SQL fee and not Windows fee.and speaking of the article , it is referencing a huge company ( Thus why Oracle fees are OK when compared to the other non-options of less cost ) Pirating software in a huge company is very not wise .
I ca n't believe you would suggest it !
You did mention it because you were suggesting a solution right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cry me a MS licensing costs river!Fair enough, but my Linux licensing costs won't change!Hate to be the first to point this out, but Microsoft does not make Oracle.And if you are running Oracle and your costs don't change based on how many CPU/cores you run it on, EVEN ON LINUX, you are basically running unlicensed software.Or did you just ignore the fact they said SQL fee and not Windows fee.and speaking of the article, it is referencing a huge company (Thus why Oracle fees are OK when compared to the other non-options of less cost)Pirating software in a huge company is very not wise.
I can't believe you would suggest it!
You did mention it because you were suggesting a solution right?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662150</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662150</id>
	<title>Cry me a MS licensing costs river!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269856620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fair enough, but my Linux licensing costs won't change!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fair enough , but my Linux licensing costs wo n't change !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fair enough, but my Linux licensing costs won't change!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31669904</id>
	<title>Re:Cry me a MS licensing costs river!</title>
	<author>MikeBabcock</author>
	<datestamp>1269961440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I worked with an Exchange server once.  It actually made me want sendmail back, and I didn't think that was possible.</p><p>Microsoft technologies are not all in the "Windows and Office" basket for sure.  Windows [the basics] and Office are made for end users.  Windows Server administration, Exchange, SQL server, etc. are easily as complex as their *nix equivalents, and the latter are often more well documented and easier to fix.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I worked with an Exchange server once .
It actually made me want sendmail back , and I did n't think that was possible.Microsoft technologies are not all in the " Windows and Office " basket for sure .
Windows [ the basics ] and Office are made for end users .
Windows Server administration , Exchange , SQL server , etc .
are easily as complex as their * nix equivalents , and the latter are often more well documented and easier to fix .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I worked with an Exchange server once.
It actually made me want sendmail back, and I didn't think that was possible.Microsoft technologies are not all in the "Windows and Office" basket for sure.
Windows [the basics] and Office are made for end users.
Windows Server administration, Exchange, SQL server, etc.
are easily as complex as their *nix equivalents, and the latter are often more well documented and easier to fix.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31668468</id>
	<title>Re:oh geeze....</title>
	<author>mikechant</author>
	<datestamp>1269951600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Time to render 30 minute Video CD image (at VHS resolution) on 1999 mid-high level PC (cost &pound;1200): 10 hours approx, PC effectively unusable for other purposes.</p><p>Time to render 2hr DVD image (at std DVD resolution) on 2008 low end PC (cost &pound;350): 30 mins approx, PC also playing music/video, web browsing, ripping CDs etc. at the same time.</p><p>The effect of 'bloat' is often overstated.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Time to render 30 minute Video CD image ( at VHS resolution ) on 1999 mid-high level PC ( cost   1200 ) : 10 hours approx , PC effectively unusable for other purposes.Time to render 2hr DVD image ( at std DVD resolution ) on 2008 low end PC ( cost   350 ) : 30 mins approx , PC also playing music/video , web browsing , ripping CDs etc .
at the same time.The effect of 'bloat ' is often overstated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Time to render 30 minute Video CD image (at VHS resolution) on 1999 mid-high level PC (cost £1200): 10 hours approx, PC effectively unusable for other purposes.Time to render 2hr DVD image (at std DVD resolution) on 2008 low end PC (cost £350): 30 mins approx, PC also playing music/video, web browsing, ripping CDs etc.
at the same time.The effect of 'bloat' is often overstated.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662226</id>
	<title>Re:Per-core licensing?</title>
	<author>MBGMorden</author>
	<datestamp>1269856920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft hasn't.  Some others have though.  It gets complicated though.  IBM for example uses "performance units" for some of it's software.  Single core x86 machines are 50 units per core.  Dual Core and Quad-Core x86 machines are 25 units per core - so going single to dual costs you nothing extra but single to quad doubles the software price.  They also value some processors differently than others.  Certain Sun processors for example are 35 units per core.  You pay a certain amount per unit.</p><p>In general though, I'm sure the software makers will catch on eventually.  I specifically got a single quad core for my last SQL server to avoid a dual-cpu license (which is an extra $6k or so).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft has n't .
Some others have though .
It gets complicated though .
IBM for example uses " performance units " for some of it 's software .
Single core x86 machines are 50 units per core .
Dual Core and Quad-Core x86 machines are 25 units per core - so going single to dual costs you nothing extra but single to quad doubles the software price .
They also value some processors differently than others .
Certain Sun processors for example are 35 units per core .
You pay a certain amount per unit.In general though , I 'm sure the software makers will catch on eventually .
I specifically got a single quad core for my last SQL server to avoid a dual-cpu license ( which is an extra $ 6k or so ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft hasn't.
Some others have though.
It gets complicated though.
IBM for example uses "performance units" for some of it's software.
Single core x86 machines are 50 units per core.
Dual Core and Quad-Core x86 machines are 25 units per core - so going single to dual costs you nothing extra but single to quad doubles the software price.
They also value some processors differently than others.
Certain Sun processors for example are 35 units per core.
You pay a certain amount per unit.In general though, I'm sure the software makers will catch on eventually.
I specifically got a single quad core for my last SQL server to avoid a dual-cpu license (which is an extra $6k or so).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662776</id>
	<title>Re:Opposite problem with Oracle licensing</title>
	<author>BillyGee</author>
	<datestamp>1269859320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually Oracle charges per socket on Standard and Standard One licenses and per Core only on Enterprise licenses.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually Oracle charges per socket on Standard and Standard One licenses and per Core only on Enterprise licenses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually Oracle charges per socket on Standard and Standard One licenses and per Core only on Enterprise licenses.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662290</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662752</id>
	<title>Re:But will it run...</title>
	<author>symbolset</author>
	<datestamp>1269859200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>One of the coolest things about this stuff is that inside of one dual-processor workstation you can set up a whole datacenter worth of VMs, and model how the pieces interact without fiddling with racks and cables.  You can build up a redundant database, fileserver or iSCSI server solution (or all three!) and see how it handles failover and failback.  The simulated clients that apply stress can be VMs in the same box.  You can even float a cloud of routers and see how they handle various BGP commands.  Pretty neat stuff.</htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the coolest things about this stuff is that inside of one dual-processor workstation you can set up a whole datacenter worth of VMs , and model how the pieces interact without fiddling with racks and cables .
You can build up a redundant database , fileserver or iSCSI server solution ( or all three !
) and see how it handles failover and failback .
The simulated clients that apply stress can be VMs in the same box .
You can even float a cloud of routers and see how they handle various BGP commands .
Pretty neat stuff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the coolest things about this stuff is that inside of one dual-processor workstation you can set up a whole datacenter worth of VMs, and model how the pieces interact without fiddling with racks and cables.
You can build up a redundant database, fileserver or iSCSI server solution (or all three!
) and see how it handles failover and failback.
The simulated clients that apply stress can be VMs in the same box.
You can even float a cloud of routers and see how they handle various BGP commands.
Pretty neat stuff.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662460</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662810</id>
	<title>Re:But will it run...</title>
	<author>Bigjeff5</author>
	<datestamp>1269859500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since multi-threading is so hard to do right, most of what you are going to do is consolidation.</p><p>So instead of having 6 separate servers, you just shove buttloads of RAM in a single server and set up a SAN for your data storage, and move all 6 servers to one box.  You can even split it up further than that - if you have a couple servers that need to be separate from each other, but don't really need a lot of processing power, you can put those on a single core apiece.  So you could potentially consolidate up to 12 servers into one box with virtual servers.  More than likely you'll only get 6 or 8 out of it, because dual cores do help a lot, but still there's the potential to turn two racks of servers into one server and a SAN.</p><p>You save on space, you save on energy, and you ultimately save on hardware (though SANs are expensive, so if you don't need the speed you could go to a standard NAS setup).  To expand your data storage you just need to expand your SAN, so you can add servers and storage independently of each other.  All of these are major up sides to going this route.</p><p>Going from a 60 server setup to a 10 server setup has a massive potential for savings.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since multi-threading is so hard to do right , most of what you are going to do is consolidation.So instead of having 6 separate servers , you just shove buttloads of RAM in a single server and set up a SAN for your data storage , and move all 6 servers to one box .
You can even split it up further than that - if you have a couple servers that need to be separate from each other , but do n't really need a lot of processing power , you can put those on a single core apiece .
So you could potentially consolidate up to 12 servers into one box with virtual servers .
More than likely you 'll only get 6 or 8 out of it , because dual cores do help a lot , but still there 's the potential to turn two racks of servers into one server and a SAN.You save on space , you save on energy , and you ultimately save on hardware ( though SANs are expensive , so if you do n't need the speed you could go to a standard NAS setup ) .
To expand your data storage you just need to expand your SAN , so you can add servers and storage independently of each other .
All of these are major up sides to going this route.Going from a 60 server setup to a 10 server setup has a massive potential for savings .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since multi-threading is so hard to do right, most of what you are going to do is consolidation.So instead of having 6 separate servers, you just shove buttloads of RAM in a single server and set up a SAN for your data storage, and move all 6 servers to one box.
You can even split it up further than that - if you have a couple servers that need to be separate from each other, but don't really need a lot of processing power, you can put those on a single core apiece.
So you could potentially consolidate up to 12 servers into one box with virtual servers.
More than likely you'll only get 6 or 8 out of it, because dual cores do help a lot, but still there's the potential to turn two racks of servers into one server and a SAN.You save on space, you save on energy, and you ultimately save on hardware (though SANs are expensive, so if you don't need the speed you could go to a standard NAS setup).
To expand your data storage you just need to expand your SAN, so you can add servers and storage independently of each other.
All of these are major up sides to going this route.Going from a 60 server setup to a 10 server setup has a massive potential for savings.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662460</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31664048</id>
	<title>Re:Naming scheme...</title>
	<author>Mycroft\_VIII</author>
	<datestamp>1269866340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>  Odd I didn't see "many cores" I saw "mangy curs" instead and thought marketing had blundered.<br><br>oh well<br><br>Mycroft</htmltext>
<tokenext>Odd I did n't see " many cores " I saw " mangy curs " instead and thought marketing had blundered.oh wellMycroft</tokentext>
<sentencetext>  Odd I didn't see "many cores" I saw "mangy curs" instead and thought marketing had blundered.oh wellMycroft</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662420</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662698</id>
	<title>Re:ever heard of MySQL?</title>
	<author>WarwickRyan</author>
	<datestamp>1269858900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry, MySQL isn't in the slightest comparible to MSSQL or Oracle.  It doesn't have half the features, it's buggy, and it's generally slower.  Tooling is also poor in comparison.  It's still, unforunately, a toy.</p><p>MySQL does well in the web.  That's because it's free licence is suited to horizontal expansion - throw lots of cheap servers at it (where such expansion is possible).  Tight integration with PHP just puts the icing on the cake.  However, compared to other stacks it's poor.  Both MSSQL/ASP.net and Oracle/Java-application-server perform significantly better (often factors) than the MySQL/PHP stack.</p><p>So buying Microsoft/Oracle might seem expensive, that is often not the case.</p><p>But the web isn't the world for databases.  There are lots of other usages.</p><p>MSSQL is for example is ideal for SMEs, you get a heck of a lot for your money - very well performing database with mature, well integrated and well performing stack.  Plus a really nice BI implementation built right in, with nice easy GUIs for dummies / business users.</p><p>Oracle's the daddy.  It's complex but it's a more capable db than MSSQL.  As a developer you have fine grain control over how the engine works.  For certain enterprise applications it's the only real option (apart from going to IBM).  I've been lead to believe that it's the performance king too.</p><p>If you're serious about open source databases, then you need to use a serious open source database as an example.  Both Ingres and PostgreSQL are mature, well performing and fully featured databases which are available under an open source license.  They're what you should be comparing with SQL Server / Oracle.  Not MySQL.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry , MySQL is n't in the slightest comparible to MSSQL or Oracle .
It does n't have half the features , it 's buggy , and it 's generally slower .
Tooling is also poor in comparison .
It 's still , unforunately , a toy.MySQL does well in the web .
That 's because it 's free licence is suited to horizontal expansion - throw lots of cheap servers at it ( where such expansion is possible ) .
Tight integration with PHP just puts the icing on the cake .
However , compared to other stacks it 's poor .
Both MSSQL/ASP.net and Oracle/Java-application-server perform significantly better ( often factors ) than the MySQL/PHP stack.So buying Microsoft/Oracle might seem expensive , that is often not the case.But the web is n't the world for databases .
There are lots of other usages.MSSQL is for example is ideal for SMEs , you get a heck of a lot for your money - very well performing database with mature , well integrated and well performing stack .
Plus a really nice BI implementation built right in , with nice easy GUIs for dummies / business users.Oracle 's the daddy .
It 's complex but it 's a more capable db than MSSQL .
As a developer you have fine grain control over how the engine works .
For certain enterprise applications it 's the only real option ( apart from going to IBM ) .
I 've been lead to believe that it 's the performance king too.If you 're serious about open source databases , then you need to use a serious open source database as an example .
Both Ingres and PostgreSQL are mature , well performing and fully featured databases which are available under an open source license .
They 're what you should be comparing with SQL Server / Oracle .
Not MySQL .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry, MySQL isn't in the slightest comparible to MSSQL or Oracle.
It doesn't have half the features, it's buggy, and it's generally slower.
Tooling is also poor in comparison.
It's still, unforunately, a toy.MySQL does well in the web.
That's because it's free licence is suited to horizontal expansion - throw lots of cheap servers at it (where such expansion is possible).
Tight integration with PHP just puts the icing on the cake.
However, compared to other stacks it's poor.
Both MSSQL/ASP.net and Oracle/Java-application-server perform significantly better (often factors) than the MySQL/PHP stack.So buying Microsoft/Oracle might seem expensive, that is often not the case.But the web isn't the world for databases.
There are lots of other usages.MSSQL is for example is ideal for SMEs, you get a heck of a lot for your money - very well performing database with mature, well integrated and well performing stack.
Plus a really nice BI implementation built right in, with nice easy GUIs for dummies / business users.Oracle's the daddy.
It's complex but it's a more capable db than MSSQL.
As a developer you have fine grain control over how the engine works.
For certain enterprise applications it's the only real option (apart from going to IBM).
I've been lead to believe that it's the performance king too.If you're serious about open source databases, then you need to use a serious open source database as an example.
Both Ingres and PostgreSQL are mature, well performing and fully featured databases which are available under an open source license.
They're what you should be comparing with SQL Server / Oracle.
Not MySQL.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662306</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662450</id>
	<title>My licenses</title>
	<author>SnarfQuest</author>
	<datestamp>1269857880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Will I need to buy more SCO licenses for this one chip? This could get expensive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Will I need to buy more SCO licenses for this one chip ?
This could get expensive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Will I need to buy more SCO licenses for this one chip?
This could get expensive.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31666936</id>
	<title>Re:Cry me a MS licensing costs river!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269888480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah sure winadmins aren't free. Couple them in with the cost of licenses and the cost of downtime, for when your half-ass admins can't fix something.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah sure winadmins are n't free .
Couple them in with the cost of licenses and the cost of downtime , for when your half-ass admins ca n't fix something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah sure winadmins aren't free.
Couple them in with the cost of licenses and the cost of downtime, for when your half-ass admins can't fix something.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662550</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31667472</id>
	<title>Re:But will it run...</title>
	<author>mcrbids</author>
	<datestamp>1269981780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We are an ASP er, "cloud computing" (ahem) vendor. We have a cluster of computers to handle our proprietary application stack, which is now around 100,000 lines of code, with over 100 clients averaging around 200 full-time users each.</p><p>We've been at a "sweet spot" for several years now. Upgrading every few years, we've gone from dual core systems, to quad-core, to our current mix of quad and 8-core servers. During this time, our database schema has grown from around 50 to around 300 tables, the database size has mushroomed, and the number (and size) of clients have grown rapidly.</p><p>But we've served a much larger customer base with a much larger and more complicated schema without an effective increase in the total amount of equipment!</p><p>Annual hardware costs remain flat, administration costs remain flat, while the bottom line increases - can you say "win/win"!?!?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We are an ASP er , " cloud computing " ( ahem ) vendor .
We have a cluster of computers to handle our proprietary application stack , which is now around 100,000 lines of code , with over 100 clients averaging around 200 full-time users each.We 've been at a " sweet spot " for several years now .
Upgrading every few years , we 've gone from dual core systems , to quad-core , to our current mix of quad and 8-core servers .
During this time , our database schema has grown from around 50 to around 300 tables , the database size has mushroomed , and the number ( and size ) of clients have grown rapidly.But we 've served a much larger customer base with a much larger and more complicated schema without an effective increase in the total amount of equipment ! Annual hardware costs remain flat , administration costs remain flat , while the bottom line increases - can you say " win/win " ! ? !
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We are an ASP er, "cloud computing" (ahem) vendor.
We have a cluster of computers to handle our proprietary application stack, which is now around 100,000 lines of code, with over 100 clients averaging around 200 full-time users each.We've been at a "sweet spot" for several years now.
Upgrading every few years, we've gone from dual core systems, to quad-core, to our current mix of quad and 8-core servers.
During this time, our database schema has grown from around 50 to around 300 tables, the database size has mushroomed, and the number (and size) of clients have grown rapidly.But we've served a much larger customer base with a much larger and more complicated schema without an effective increase in the total amount of equipment!Annual hardware costs remain flat, administration costs remain flat, while the bottom line increases - can you say "win/win"!?!
?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662810</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662454</id>
	<title>Software Licensing Costs?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269857880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What are these? Is this something that afflicts Windows people still?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What are these ?
Is this something that afflicts Windows people still ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What are these?
Is this something that afflicts Windows people still?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31665630</id>
	<title>Re:Per-core licensing?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269875940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Actually Oracle licensing is based on a simple formula of:</p><p>(Number of cores * scaling based on how good the cores are + bytes of RAM / salesman's commission + number of users / number of ginger people in your organisation) + sqrt(-2) * phase of the moon</p></div><p>Wow, I'm out of the loop.  Since when did Oracle simplify their licensing?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually Oracle licensing is based on a simple formula of : ( Number of cores * scaling based on how good the cores are + bytes of RAM / salesman 's commission + number of users / number of ginger people in your organisation ) + sqrt ( -2 ) * phase of the moonWow , I 'm out of the loop .
Since when did Oracle simplify their licensing ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually Oracle licensing is based on a simple formula of:(Number of cores * scaling based on how good the cores are + bytes of RAM / salesman's commission + number of users / number of ginger people in your organisation) + sqrt(-2) * phase of the moonWow, I'm out of the loop.
Since when did Oracle simplify their licensing?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31663628</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31666788</id>
	<title>Irrelevant</title>
	<author>Eivind</author>
	<datestamp>1269887220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>These "savings" are irrelevant and temporary at best. People should remember that the monopolists selling them their crack can set the prices however they please. You can feel perfectly sure that if there's a strong trend to replace a dozen dual-core machines with 4 more powerful machines, doing the same job at 1/3rd the software-licensing-cost, the vendors will simply change their licensing to per-core.</p><p>So yes, short-term you may be able to save some money by such trickery. Medium-term it's a zero-sum-game though, the price will fluctuate back to the same point it always was: that point where the vendor believes (rightly or not) that the maximum profit can be made.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>These " savings " are irrelevant and temporary at best .
People should remember that the monopolists selling them their crack can set the prices however they please .
You can feel perfectly sure that if there 's a strong trend to replace a dozen dual-core machines with 4 more powerful machines , doing the same job at 1/3rd the software-licensing-cost , the vendors will simply change their licensing to per-core.So yes , short-term you may be able to save some money by such trickery .
Medium-term it 's a zero-sum-game though , the price will fluctuate back to the same point it always was : that point where the vendor believes ( rightly or not ) that the maximum profit can be made .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These "savings" are irrelevant and temporary at best.
People should remember that the monopolists selling them their crack can set the prices however they please.
You can feel perfectly sure that if there's a strong trend to replace a dozen dual-core machines with 4 more powerful machines, doing the same job at 1/3rd the software-licensing-cost, the vendors will simply change their licensing to per-core.So yes, short-term you may be able to save some money by such trickery.
Medium-term it's a zero-sum-game though, the price will fluctuate back to the same point it always was: that point where the vendor believes (rightly or not) that the maximum profit can be made.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31664790</id>
	<title>Re:SQL Server is CPU bound?</title>
	<author>NitroWolf</author>
	<datestamp>1269870180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In my experience, it's rare for SQL Servers to be CPU bound, they're almost invariably IO bound, and having more cores won't help you when your disks are the bottleneck.  I could see excitement over lowering per-machine costs for something like a renderfarm, but it doesn't seem likely to materialize for Databases.</p></div><p>This is why I came in here to say... There's been some rare instances where my single core machines running DB backends and what have you (yeah they are getting long in the tooth) have run up against a CPU wall... but that's few and far between and a quad core would solve that completely for a long time to come. Almost always, though, when a problem crops up it's the drive(s) that are going mad trying to play catchup while the CPU sits almost idle with brief spurts of activity.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In my experience , it 's rare for SQL Servers to be CPU bound , they 're almost invariably IO bound , and having more cores wo n't help you when your disks are the bottleneck .
I could see excitement over lowering per-machine costs for something like a renderfarm , but it does n't seem likely to materialize for Databases.This is why I came in here to say... There 's been some rare instances where my single core machines running DB backends and what have you ( yeah they are getting long in the tooth ) have run up against a CPU wall... but that 's few and far between and a quad core would solve that completely for a long time to come .
Almost always , though , when a problem crops up it 's the drive ( s ) that are going mad trying to play catchup while the CPU sits almost idle with brief spurts of activity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In my experience, it's rare for SQL Servers to be CPU bound, they're almost invariably IO bound, and having more cores won't help you when your disks are the bottleneck.
I could see excitement over lowering per-machine costs for something like a renderfarm, but it doesn't seem likely to materialize for Databases.This is why I came in here to say... There's been some rare instances where my single core machines running DB backends and what have you (yeah they are getting long in the tooth) have run up against a CPU wall... but that's few and far between and a quad core would solve that completely for a long time to come.
Almost always, though, when a problem crops up it's the drive(s) that are going mad trying to play catchup while the CPU sits almost idle with brief spurts of activity.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662346</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662612</id>
	<title>Re:But will it run...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269858480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Think VM (VmWare/Xen/Solaris Zones) instead of parallel applications...Multi-core CPUs are great for server consolidation.  We went from a row of 10 full racks of Sun gear down to 10 T2+ blades + a SAN over the last 18 months.  Database / webserver / Java app server, you name it, the T2+ handles it all!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Think VM ( VmWare/Xen/Solaris Zones ) instead of parallel applications...Multi-core CPUs are great for server consolidation .
We went from a row of 10 full racks of Sun gear down to 10 T2 + blades + a SAN over the last 18 months .
Database / webserver / Java app server , you name it , the T2 + handles it all !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Think VM (VmWare/Xen/Solaris Zones) instead of parallel applications...Multi-core CPUs are great for server consolidation.
We went from a row of 10 full racks of Sun gear down to 10 T2+ blades + a SAN over the last 18 months.
Database / webserver / Java app server, you name it, the T2+ handles it all!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662460</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31665682</id>
	<title>Re:Cry me a MS licensing costs river!</title>
	<author>wisty</author>
	<datestamp>1269876300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unix admin is considered to be unreliable and inefficient. But there's a good reason - Unix admins manage big servers with dozens of people to logging in, while Windows admins are handling a file server, a router, and a a bunch of desktops.</p><p>If Linux admins were smart, they would push for the same (simple) model that Windows admins use - desktop boxes and a few special purpose servers.</p><p>Instead, they tend to give everyone SSH access, creating a very hard-to-maintain environment.</p><p>That's why enterprises don't go Unix. (Oh, and Office<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unix admin is considered to be unreliable and inefficient .
But there 's a good reason - Unix admins manage big servers with dozens of people to logging in , while Windows admins are handling a file server , a router , and a a bunch of desktops.If Linux admins were smart , they would push for the same ( simple ) model that Windows admins use - desktop boxes and a few special purpose servers.Instead , they tend to give everyone SSH access , creating a very hard-to-maintain environment.That 's why enterprises do n't go Unix .
( Oh , and Office ... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unix admin is considered to be unreliable and inefficient.
But there's a good reason - Unix admins manage big servers with dozens of people to logging in, while Windows admins are handling a file server, a router, and a a bunch of desktops.If Linux admins were smart, they would push for the same (simple) model that Windows admins use - desktop boxes and a few special purpose servers.Instead, they tend to give everyone SSH access, creating a very hard-to-maintain environment.That's why enterprises don't go Unix.
(Oh, and Office ...)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31663628</id>
	<title>Re:Per-core licensing?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269863880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually Oracle licensing is based on a simple formula of:</p><p>
(Number of cores * scaling based on how good the cores are + bytes of RAM / salesman's commission + number of users / number of ginger people in your organisation) + sqrt(-2) * phase of the moon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually Oracle licensing is based on a simple formula of : ( Number of cores * scaling based on how good the cores are + bytes of RAM / salesman 's commission + number of users / number of ginger people in your organisation ) + sqrt ( -2 ) * phase of the moon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually Oracle licensing is based on a simple formula of:
(Number of cores * scaling based on how good the cores are + bytes of RAM / salesman's commission + number of users / number of ginger people in your organisation) + sqrt(-2) * phase of the moon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662492</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662420</id>
	<title>Naming scheme...</title>
	<author>Archaemic</author>
	<datestamp>1269857700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>AMD released on Monday its 12-core chip code-named Magny-Cours</p></div></blockquote><p>Very clever, AMD. Naming your chip after a location in Europe as usual, but this time making it able to be read as "Many-Cores" (or possibly more accurately "Many-Core", I don't really know how to pronounce French words). Very clever indeed...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>AMD released on Monday its 12-core chip code-named Magny-CoursVery clever , AMD .
Naming your chip after a location in Europe as usual , but this time making it able to be read as " Many-Cores " ( or possibly more accurately " Many-Core " , I do n't really know how to pronounce French words ) .
Very clever indeed.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AMD released on Monday its 12-core chip code-named Magny-CoursVery clever, AMD.
Naming your chip after a location in Europe as usual, but this time making it able to be read as "Many-Cores" (or possibly more accurately "Many-Core", I don't really know how to pronounce French words).
Very clever indeed...
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31664852</id>
	<title>Re:Per-core licensing?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269870480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><tt> <strong> <em>my-server</em> ~ #</strong> emerge -atv virtual/postgresql-server</tt></p><p><tt>These are the packages that would be merged, in reverse order:</tt></p><p><tt>Calculating dependencies<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... done!<br>[<strong>ebuild  N    </strong>] <strong>virtual/postgresql-server-8.4</strong>  0 kB<br>[<strong>ebuild  N    </strong>]  <strong>dev-db/postgresql-server-8.4.3</strong>  USE="<strong>doc nls perl python xml</strong> <em>-pg\_legacytimestamp (-selinux) -tcl -uuid</em>" LINGUAS="<strong>de fr es</strong> <em>-af -cs -fa -hr -hu -it -ko -nb -pl -pt\_BR -ro -ru -sk -sl -sv -tr -zh\_CN -zh\_TW</em>" 13,326 kB<br>[<strong>ebuild  N    </strong>]  <strong> dev-db/postgresql-base-8.4.3</strong>  USE="<strong>doc nls pam readline ssl threads zlib</strong> <em>-kerberos -ldap -pg\_legacytimestamp</em>" LINGUAS="<strong>de fr es</strong> <em>-af -cs -fa -hr -hu -it -ko -nb -pl -pt\_BR -ro -ru -sk -sl -sv -tr -zh\_CN -zh\_TW"</em> 0 kB</tt></p><p><tt>Total: 3 packages (3 reinstalls), Size of downloads: 13,326 kB</tt></p><p><tt><strong>Would you like to merge these packages?</strong> [<strong>Yes</strong>/<em>No</em>] y</tt></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>my-server ~ # emerge -atv virtual/postgresql-serverThese are the packages that would be merged , in reverse order : Calculating dependencies .. .
done ! [ ebuild N ] virtual/postgresql-server-8.4 0 kB [ ebuild N ] dev-db/postgresql-server-8.4.3 USE = " doc nls perl python xml -pg \ _legacytimestamp ( -selinux ) -tcl -uuid " LINGUAS = " de fr es -af -cs -fa -hr -hu -it -ko -nb -pl -pt \ _BR -ro -ru -sk -sl -sv -tr -zh \ _CN -zh \ _TW " 13,326 kB [ ebuild N ] dev-db/postgresql-base-8.4.3 USE = " doc nls pam readline ssl threads zlib -kerberos -ldap -pg \ _legacytimestamp " LINGUAS = " de fr es -af -cs -fa -hr -hu -it -ko -nb -pl -pt \ _BR -ro -ru -sk -sl -sv -tr -zh \ _CN -zh \ _TW " 0 kBTotal : 3 packages ( 3 reinstalls ) , Size of downloads : 13,326 kBWould you like to merge these packages ?
[ Yes/No ] y</tokentext>
<sentencetext>  my-server ~ # emerge -atv virtual/postgresql-serverThese are the packages that would be merged, in reverse order:Calculating dependencies ...
done![ebuild  N    ] virtual/postgresql-server-8.4  0 kB[ebuild  N    ]  dev-db/postgresql-server-8.4.3  USE="doc nls perl python xml -pg\_legacytimestamp (-selinux) -tcl -uuid" LINGUAS="de fr es -af -cs -fa -hr -hu -it -ko -nb -pl -pt\_BR -ro -ru -sk -sl -sv -tr -zh\_CN -zh\_TW" 13,326 kB[ebuild  N    ]   dev-db/postgresql-base-8.4.3  USE="doc nls pam readline ssl threads zlib -kerberos -ldap -pg\_legacytimestamp" LINGUAS="de fr es -af -cs -fa -hr -hu -it -ko -nb -pl -pt\_BR -ro -ru -sk -sl -sv -tr -zh\_CN -zh\_TW" 0 kBTotal: 3 packages (3 reinstalls), Size of downloads: 13,326 kBWould you like to merge these packages?
[Yes/No] y</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31663628</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662556</id>
	<title>Re:But will it run...</title>
	<author>h4rr4r</author>
	<datestamp>1269858300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Virtualization is a huge market for these cpus as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Virtualization is a huge market for these cpus as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Virtualization is a huge market for these cpus as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662460</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662346</id>
	<title>SQL Server is CPU bound?</title>
	<author>jandrese</author>
	<datestamp>1269857460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>In my experience, it's rare for SQL Servers to be CPU bound, they're almost invariably IO bound, and having more cores won't help you when your disks are the bottleneck.  I could see excitement over lowering per-machine costs for something like a renderfarm, but it doesn't seem likely to materialize for Databases.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In my experience , it 's rare for SQL Servers to be CPU bound , they 're almost invariably IO bound , and having more cores wo n't help you when your disks are the bottleneck .
I could see excitement over lowering per-machine costs for something like a renderfarm , but it does n't seem likely to materialize for Databases .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In my experience, it's rare for SQL Servers to be CPU bound, they're almost invariably IO bound, and having more cores won't help you when your disks are the bottleneck.
I could see excitement over lowering per-machine costs for something like a renderfarm, but it doesn't seem likely to materialize for Databases.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662856</id>
	<title>Re:Cry me a MS licensing costs river!</title>
	<author>vadim\_t</author>
	<datestamp>1269859740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think you're comparing apples to oranges.</p><p>Learning Windows as in basic usage and administration is easy. Learning the basics for Linux is quite easy too.</p><p>Actual deep knowledge of Active Directory, MSSQL, Exchange, etc is the Windows equivalent of a competent Linux admin, and those people want quite a lot of money as well. True, if you want a monkey that reformats boxes and replaces broken hardware and helps the users a bit, then they can probably be found cheaper for Windows. But that's not who you want to maintain your business critical Oracle server. Actually competent admins with knowledge of the details, good understanding of databases, and especially people like Oracle DBAs aren't going to be cheap, no matter the OS.</p><p>There's nothing that easy about MS technologies. They're superficially easy, sure. But there's quite a lot underneath that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you 're comparing apples to oranges.Learning Windows as in basic usage and administration is easy .
Learning the basics for Linux is quite easy too.Actual deep knowledge of Active Directory , MSSQL , Exchange , etc is the Windows equivalent of a competent Linux admin , and those people want quite a lot of money as well .
True , if you want a monkey that reformats boxes and replaces broken hardware and helps the users a bit , then they can probably be found cheaper for Windows .
But that 's not who you want to maintain your business critical Oracle server .
Actually competent admins with knowledge of the details , good understanding of databases , and especially people like Oracle DBAs are n't going to be cheap , no matter the OS.There 's nothing that easy about MS technologies .
They 're superficially easy , sure .
But there 's quite a lot underneath that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you're comparing apples to oranges.Learning Windows as in basic usage and administration is easy.
Learning the basics for Linux is quite easy too.Actual deep knowledge of Active Directory, MSSQL, Exchange, etc is the Windows equivalent of a competent Linux admin, and those people want quite a lot of money as well.
True, if you want a monkey that reformats boxes and replaces broken hardware and helps the users a bit, then they can probably be found cheaper for Windows.
But that's not who you want to maintain your business critical Oracle server.
Actually competent admins with knowledge of the details, good understanding of databases, and especially people like Oracle DBAs aren't going to be cheap, no matter the OS.There's nothing that easy about MS technologies.
They're superficially easy, sure.
But there's quite a lot underneath that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662410</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31666566</id>
	<title>Re:Why are these companies charging more?</title>
	<author>mgblst</author>
	<datestamp>1269884700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I really don't understand why these companies insist on changing from a Per-Socket to a Per-Core pricing scheme</i></p><p>Really? You don't understand why companies change the rules to make more money? Do you not grasp the concept of capitalism, profits?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I really do n't understand why these companies insist on changing from a Per-Socket to a Per-Core pricing schemeReally ?
You do n't understand why companies change the rules to make more money ?
Do you not grasp the concept of capitalism , profits ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really don't understand why these companies insist on changing from a Per-Socket to a Per-Core pricing schemeReally?
You don't understand why companies change the rules to make more money?
Do you not grasp the concept of capitalism, profits?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31663292</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662200</id>
	<title>oh geeze....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269856740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>upgrading to the 12-core Opteron chip from his current quad-core chips will allow him to cut the number of servers &mdash; and his software licensing fees.</p></div><p>Really? You mean, as computers get faster you *might* need fewer of them?</p><p>With the advent of the T1, you didn't need 24 DS0 lines, which saved me money on my telecom fees!</p><p>I would have thought the real-estate market downturn saved him a bundle on licensing.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>upgrading to the 12-core Opteron chip from his current quad-core chips will allow him to cut the number of servers    and his software licensing fees.Really ?
You mean , as computers get faster you * might * need fewer of them ? With the advent of the T1 , you did n't need 24 DS0 lines , which saved me money on my telecom fees ! I would have thought the real-estate market downturn saved him a bundle on licensing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>upgrading to the 12-core Opteron chip from his current quad-core chips will allow him to cut the number of servers — and his software licensing fees.Really?
You mean, as computers get faster you *might* need fewer of them?With the advent of the T1, you didn't need 24 DS0 lines, which saved me money on my telecom fees!I would have thought the real-estate market downturn saved him a bundle on licensing.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31663880</id>
	<title>AMD twists the issue</title>
	<author>Glasswire</author>
	<datestamp>1269865320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, AMD is not going to save software costs, on Oracle for instance, by using a 12 core processor when an 8-core Nehalem-EX processor outperforms the AMD at two-thirds the per core license cost.<br>This is AMD trying to get out in front of the issue that the overall throughput per core is much lower than Intel's current Westmere-EP 6-core. 2-socket or Nehalem-EX 8-core, 4/8+ socket cpus .<br>In virtually all per-core licensing scenarios (most of HPC and many big DB ( Oracle, DB2 ) and ERP apps) AMD Magny Cours is not competitive</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , AMD is not going to save software costs , on Oracle for instance , by using a 12 core processor when an 8-core Nehalem-EX processor outperforms the AMD at two-thirds the per core license cost.This is AMD trying to get out in front of the issue that the overall throughput per core is much lower than Intel 's current Westmere-EP 6-core .
2-socket or Nehalem-EX 8-core , 4/8 + socket cpus .In virtually all per-core licensing scenarios ( most of HPC and many big DB ( Oracle , DB2 ) and ERP apps ) AMD Magny Cours is not competitive</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, AMD is not going to save software costs, on Oracle for instance, by using a 12 core processor when an 8-core Nehalem-EX processor outperforms the AMD at two-thirds the per core license cost.This is AMD trying to get out in front of the issue that the overall throughput per core is much lower than Intel's current Westmere-EP 6-core.
2-socket or Nehalem-EX 8-core, 4/8+ socket cpus .In virtually all per-core licensing scenarios (most of HPC and many big DB ( Oracle, DB2 ) and ERP apps) AMD Magny Cours is not competitive</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31665344</id>
	<title>They'll discover what I already learned</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269874020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Some IT manager will make a commitment to server reduction.</p><p>They'll then discover that consolidation of servers running the same application exhausts CPU or IO or networking or memory or [...] so you're forced to combine application loads on the same server to achieve a reasonable consolidation load.</p><p>Then they'll discover that 95\% of windows and linux users are fairly single threaded users with simply threaded apps run one or two or three at a time.  And that loading up the equivalent of 6-10 servers worth of varying applications on a single box pushes the software and hardware architectures well past what most users do.  Which means you discover all sorts of new bugs and inefficiencies.  And they get relatively little attention from the suppliers since they dont affect most of the users.</p><p>As you drive up the consolidation, the uptime not only suffers due to the architectural issues but the introduction of these complex issues stresses the support people, requires more sophisticated (and expensive) support people, and one previously minor problem now affects 3-10x the users and multiple applications all at the same time.</p><p>We used to have these things and they were called 'mainframes'.  Those were designed from the ground up to have a thousand users and dozens of different applications and very high uptime despite the complexities.  Unfortunately windows and linux and most servers arent made with mainframe like robustness.  And yet we went away from those platforms because they had too many limitations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some IT manager will make a commitment to server reduction.They 'll then discover that consolidation of servers running the same application exhausts CPU or IO or networking or memory or [ ... ] so you 're forced to combine application loads on the same server to achieve a reasonable consolidation load.Then they 'll discover that 95 \ % of windows and linux users are fairly single threaded users with simply threaded apps run one or two or three at a time .
And that loading up the equivalent of 6-10 servers worth of varying applications on a single box pushes the software and hardware architectures well past what most users do .
Which means you discover all sorts of new bugs and inefficiencies .
And they get relatively little attention from the suppliers since they dont affect most of the users.As you drive up the consolidation , the uptime not only suffers due to the architectural issues but the introduction of these complex issues stresses the support people , requires more sophisticated ( and expensive ) support people , and one previously minor problem now affects 3-10x the users and multiple applications all at the same time.We used to have these things and they were called 'mainframes' .
Those were designed from the ground up to have a thousand users and dozens of different applications and very high uptime despite the complexities .
Unfortunately windows and linux and most servers arent made with mainframe like robustness .
And yet we went away from those platforms because they had too many limitations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some IT manager will make a commitment to server reduction.They'll then discover that consolidation of servers running the same application exhausts CPU or IO or networking or memory or [...] so you're forced to combine application loads on the same server to achieve a reasonable consolidation load.Then they'll discover that 95\% of windows and linux users are fairly single threaded users with simply threaded apps run one or two or three at a time.
And that loading up the equivalent of 6-10 servers worth of varying applications on a single box pushes the software and hardware architectures well past what most users do.
Which means you discover all sorts of new bugs and inefficiencies.
And they get relatively little attention from the suppliers since they dont affect most of the users.As you drive up the consolidation, the uptime not only suffers due to the architectural issues but the introduction of these complex issues stresses the support people, requires more sophisticated (and expensive) support people, and one previously minor problem now affects 3-10x the users and multiple applications all at the same time.We used to have these things and they were called 'mainframes'.
Those were designed from the ground up to have a thousand users and dozens of different applications and very high uptime despite the complexities.
Unfortunately windows and linux and most servers arent made with mainframe like robustness.
And yet we went away from those platforms because they had too many limitations.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31667238</id>
	<title>Re:Cry me a MS licensing costs river!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269892320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Lately, I've discovered that the Linux-admin-staff often writes simple script-solutions with their left hand, with equivalent complexity to systems written by trained developer in the IT department. And even though I personally often would rather see a more structured systematic approach to some problems, when listening to the end-users they almost always perceive they've gotten BETTER support and reliability from those scripts.</p></div><p>We're so happy about this that we let these guys do what ever they want to do with their right hand.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Lately , I 've discovered that the Linux-admin-staff often writes simple script-solutions with their left hand , with equivalent complexity to systems written by trained developer in the IT department .
And even though I personally often would rather see a more structured systematic approach to some problems , when listening to the end-users they almost always perceive they 've gotten BETTER support and reliability from those scripts.We 're so happy about this that we let these guys do what ever they want to do with their right hand .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lately, I've discovered that the Linux-admin-staff often writes simple script-solutions with their left hand, with equivalent complexity to systems written by trained developer in the IT department.
And even though I personally often would rather see a more structured systematic approach to some problems, when listening to the end-users they almost always perceive they've gotten BETTER support and reliability from those scripts.We're so happy about this that we let these guys do what ever they want to do with their right hand.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31664420</id>
	<title>Re:Cry me a MS licensing costs river!</title>
	<author>GameboyRMH</author>
	<datestamp>1269868140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>it might take half a year to really understand the linux environment and methodology if you are unfamiliar and then another 4 - 5 to gain that same profiencency equivalent.</p></div><p>Since the sibling posts have been dismantling the rest of your bullshit post I thought I'd attack this. I went from Linux virgin to Linux expert in about 3 years. Now all my home computers run Linux (well my gaming PC dual boots Win7), even my phone runs Linux. I was already a Windows expert but I'd say I know more about Linux now, as I can do things that aren't possible for a Windows end user - Windows feels a bit like a toy now.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>it might take half a year to really understand the linux environment and methodology if you are unfamiliar and then another 4 - 5 to gain that same profiencency equivalent.Since the sibling posts have been dismantling the rest of your bullshit post I thought I 'd attack this .
I went from Linux virgin to Linux expert in about 3 years .
Now all my home computers run Linux ( well my gaming PC dual boots Win7 ) , even my phone runs Linux .
I was already a Windows expert but I 'd say I know more about Linux now , as I can do things that are n't possible for a Windows end user - Windows feels a bit like a toy now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it might take half a year to really understand the linux environment and methodology if you are unfamiliar and then another 4 - 5 to gain that same profiencency equivalent.Since the sibling posts have been dismantling the rest of your bullshit post I thought I'd attack this.
I went from Linux virgin to Linux expert in about 3 years.
Now all my home computers run Linux (well my gaming PC dual boots Win7), even my phone runs Linux.
I was already a Windows expert but I'd say I know more about Linux now, as I can do things that aren't possible for a Windows end user - Windows feels a bit like a toy now.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662410</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31666640</id>
	<title>Re:Cry me a MS licensing costs river!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269885660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>There's nothing that easy about MS technologies. They're superficially easy, sure. But there's quite a lot underneath that.</i></p><p>Well, I certainly agree with you there! But what bothers me more about Windows technology isn't that it's as complex/powerful/intricate as comparable Linux technologies, as much as it's opaque.</p><p>You get a binary to install, and there you go. Enjoy, and hope to God that somebody at the other end of the 800 tech support line has mercy on your poor, sorry soul. Because you have virtually no recourse otherwise.</p><p>Compare/contrast with more open solutions, which provide options when the chips are down. How many times I've pined for a decent documented config file when rooting thru the menus to fix some obscure problem!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's nothing that easy about MS technologies .
They 're superficially easy , sure .
But there 's quite a lot underneath that.Well , I certainly agree with you there !
But what bothers me more about Windows technology is n't that it 's as complex/powerful/intricate as comparable Linux technologies , as much as it 's opaque.You get a binary to install , and there you go .
Enjoy , and hope to God that somebody at the other end of the 800 tech support line has mercy on your poor , sorry soul .
Because you have virtually no recourse otherwise.Compare/contrast with more open solutions , which provide options when the chips are down .
How many times I 've pined for a decent documented config file when rooting thru the menus to fix some obscure problem !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's nothing that easy about MS technologies.
They're superficially easy, sure.
But there's quite a lot underneath that.Well, I certainly agree with you there!
But what bothers me more about Windows technology isn't that it's as complex/powerful/intricate as comparable Linux technologies, as much as it's opaque.You get a binary to install, and there you go.
Enjoy, and hope to God that somebody at the other end of the 800 tech support line has mercy on your poor, sorry soul.
Because you have virtually no recourse otherwise.Compare/contrast with more open solutions, which provide options when the chips are down.
How many times I've pined for a decent documented config file when rooting thru the menus to fix some obscure problem!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31687652</id>
	<title>Re:Per-core licensing?</title>
	<author>MBGMorden</author>
	<datestamp>1270050300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While untactful, the AC has a point - you don't run production DB servers on Gentoo.</p><p>Second, you ALSO don't run production DB servers on unsupported versions of the software.  For development use?  Sure.  Download PostgreSQL and have fun.  It's actually a very good DB that I've been using a lot lately.</p><p>HOWEVER, if you plan on putting into use for any important customer?  Go to www.EnterpriseDB.com.  It's PostgreSQL with commercial support.  It's not free, but a support is pretty much a requirement for serious work.  These are scenario's where if the system goes down unscheduled AT ALL everyone is pissed.  If it's down unscheduled for more than 5 minutes you're getting angry phone calls.  If it goes down unscheduled for more than an hour you're looking for a new job.  It's a different league.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While untactful , the AC has a point - you do n't run production DB servers on Gentoo.Second , you ALSO do n't run production DB servers on unsupported versions of the software .
For development use ?
Sure. Download PostgreSQL and have fun .
It 's actually a very good DB that I 've been using a lot lately.HOWEVER , if you plan on putting into use for any important customer ?
Go to www.EnterpriseDB.com .
It 's PostgreSQL with commercial support .
It 's not free , but a support is pretty much a requirement for serious work .
These are scenario 's where if the system goes down unscheduled AT ALL everyone is pissed .
If it 's down unscheduled for more than 5 minutes you 're getting angry phone calls .
If it goes down unscheduled for more than an hour you 're looking for a new job .
It 's a different league .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While untactful, the AC has a point - you don't run production DB servers on Gentoo.Second, you ALSO don't run production DB servers on unsupported versions of the software.
For development use?
Sure.  Download PostgreSQL and have fun.
It's actually a very good DB that I've been using a lot lately.HOWEVER, if you plan on putting into use for any important customer?
Go to www.EnterpriseDB.com.
It's PostgreSQL with commercial support.
It's not free, but a support is pretty much a requirement for serious work.
These are scenario's where if the system goes down unscheduled AT ALL everyone is pissed.
If it's down unscheduled for more than 5 minutes you're getting angry phone calls.
If it goes down unscheduled for more than an hour you're looking for a new job.
It's a different league.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31664852</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662660</id>
	<title>Re:ever heard of MySQL?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269858720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are obviously being a sarcastic troll, but there is some truth to the idea of using an open source approach.</p><p>MLS is a site that has clearly been designed by old school developers who know nothing but what Microsoft has taught them.  First they came up with a relational data model using SQL server, then they built a site around it.  This is exactly the opposite of how you build a truly useful and scalable system.  Data should be subservient to implementation, not the other way around.  This is why companies like Google and Facebook don't sit around worrying about per-cpu licensing costs and companies like MLS do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are obviously being a sarcastic troll , but there is some truth to the idea of using an open source approach.MLS is a site that has clearly been designed by old school developers who know nothing but what Microsoft has taught them .
First they came up with a relational data model using SQL server , then they built a site around it .
This is exactly the opposite of how you build a truly useful and scalable system .
Data should be subservient to implementation , not the other way around .
This is why companies like Google and Facebook do n't sit around worrying about per-cpu licensing costs and companies like MLS do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are obviously being a sarcastic troll, but there is some truth to the idea of using an open source approach.MLS is a site that has clearly been designed by old school developers who know nothing but what Microsoft has taught them.
First they came up with a relational data model using SQL server, then they built a site around it.
This is exactly the opposite of how you build a truly useful and scalable system.
Data should be subservient to implementation, not the other way around.
This is why companies like Google and Facebook don't sit around worrying about per-cpu licensing costs and companies like MLS do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662306</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31676714</id>
	<title>Re:Per-core licensing?</title>
	<author>lsatenstein</author>
	<datestamp>1269940860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In the old days, IBM did the licensing by MIPS. A dual core with each core at 1 MIPS was a call for a 2 MIPS license.

So, MS and Oracle and others are going to have to review their algorithms to factor in higher performance systems that result in reduced numbers of servers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In the old days , IBM did the licensing by MIPS .
A dual core with each core at 1 MIPS was a call for a 2 MIPS license .
So , MS and Oracle and others are going to have to review their algorithms to factor in higher performance systems that result in reduced numbers of servers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the old days, IBM did the licensing by MIPS.
A dual core with each core at 1 MIPS was a call for a 2 MIPS license.
So, MS and Oracle and others are going to have to review their algorithms to factor in higher performance systems that result in reduced numbers of servers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31666260</id>
	<title>Re:Per-core licensing?</title>
	<author>ducomputergeek</author>
	<datestamp>1269881340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That looks about right, but your missing an irrational number in there somewhere.  I just can't remember if it's before or after the salesman's commission...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That looks about right , but your missing an irrational number in there somewhere .
I just ca n't remember if it 's before or after the salesman 's commission.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That looks about right, but your missing an irrational number in there somewhere.
I just can't remember if it's before or after the salesman's commission...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31663628</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662166</id>
	<title>Only until</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269856680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oracle, MS and others change the licensing to require a charge per core.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oracle , MS and others change the licensing to require a charge per core .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oracle, MS and others change the licensing to require a charge per core.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31668576</id>
	<title>Re:Cry me a MS licensing costs river!</title>
	<author>upuv</author>
	<datestamp>1269952920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have issues with windows.</p><p>Windows machines require more admin trips to the server room than Unix's and up time doens't even remotely approach a Unix.  To many "critical" patches to be applied none stop.  Impossible to keep running.</p><p>Yah about 1000 people are going to blow their top at that statement.  But I have 200+ physical Unix's with god knows how many VM's on them supported by 3 Unix admins and I have 22 Windows machines supported by 8 guys.</p><p>Not hard to do the dollar math there.</p><p>I have high hopes for these multi core systems in the future.  And none of those hopes involve windows.  Again simple dollar math.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have issues with windows.Windows machines require more admin trips to the server room than Unix 's and up time doens't even remotely approach a Unix .
To many " critical " patches to be applied none stop .
Impossible to keep running.Yah about 1000 people are going to blow their top at that statement .
But I have 200 + physical Unix 's with god knows how many VM 's on them supported by 3 Unix admins and I have 22 Windows machines supported by 8 guys.Not hard to do the dollar math there.I have high hopes for these multi core systems in the future .
And none of those hopes involve windows .
Again simple dollar math .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have issues with windows.Windows machines require more admin trips to the server room than Unix's and up time doens't even remotely approach a Unix.
To many "critical" patches to be applied none stop.
Impossible to keep running.Yah about 1000 people are going to blow their top at that statement.
But I have 200+ physical Unix's with god knows how many VM's on them supported by 3 Unix admins and I have 22 Windows machines supported by 8 guys.Not hard to do the dollar math there.I have high hopes for these multi core systems in the future.
And none of those hopes involve windows.
Again simple dollar math.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31663700</id>
	<title>Re:ever heard of MySQL?</title>
	<author>forkazoo</author>
	<datestamp>1269864360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Why the heck is he paying anything? Just use MySql and be done with it. It is certainly easier to use/setup/maintain than that crappy SQL Server stuff. And it is free to boot! sheesh.</p></div></blockquote><p>I have n great love of MS SQL Server, but it does have a place.  There is a ton of "Enterprisey" software that requires it.  (Or is only additionally supported on Oracle.)  When the options are:<br>1 - Spend a few grand on a server and software<br>2 - Spend (a few - 2) grand on a server, then millions of dollars to have something custom developed, and wait three years before you can use it</p><p>Sometimes, option #1 is the sensible choice.  Especially if you get into a use case where MS SQL Server performs better than MySQL.</p><p>That said, I'm currently working on some software for film post production that is being developed primarily with MySQL.  For my use, I can't see any reason that MS SQL Server or Oracle would help the project.  Of course, it will be pretty much trivial for me to migrate to Postgres or any of the others with a minimum of development effort because I'm not a psychotic brain-damaged puppy like genuine "Enterprisey" developers.</p><p>Incidentally, I'm using Qt in c++.  If anybody else starting a database client type application is wondering, the Qt SQL stuff has worked really well on all my projects.  Moving from MySQL to MSSQL or whatever is pretty much trivial in terms of application code.  The only real PITA is building the right Qt database driver on your required platform(s).  Just a matter of tracking down all the right dependencies and whatnot.  Even if you aren't using the GUI stuff, you may want to check out Qt.  For smaller stuff, I use python, which has a consistent db-api, which also makes it pretty much trivial to migrate between databases.</p><p>But, sadly, I'm still stuck supporting stuff that requires MS SQL Server because it was made by those damned "experts."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why the heck is he paying anything ?
Just use MySql and be done with it .
It is certainly easier to use/setup/maintain than that crappy SQL Server stuff .
And it is free to boot !
sheesh.I have n great love of MS SQL Server , but it does have a place .
There is a ton of " Enterprisey " software that requires it .
( Or is only additionally supported on Oracle .
) When the options are : 1 - Spend a few grand on a server and software2 - Spend ( a few - 2 ) grand on a server , then millions of dollars to have something custom developed , and wait three years before you can use itSometimes , option # 1 is the sensible choice .
Especially if you get into a use case where MS SQL Server performs better than MySQL.That said , I 'm currently working on some software for film post production that is being developed primarily with MySQL .
For my use , I ca n't see any reason that MS SQL Server or Oracle would help the project .
Of course , it will be pretty much trivial for me to migrate to Postgres or any of the others with a minimum of development effort because I 'm not a psychotic brain-damaged puppy like genuine " Enterprisey " developers.Incidentally , I 'm using Qt in c + + .
If anybody else starting a database client type application is wondering , the Qt SQL stuff has worked really well on all my projects .
Moving from MySQL to MSSQL or whatever is pretty much trivial in terms of application code .
The only real PITA is building the right Qt database driver on your required platform ( s ) .
Just a matter of tracking down all the right dependencies and whatnot .
Even if you are n't using the GUI stuff , you may want to check out Qt .
For smaller stuff , I use python , which has a consistent db-api , which also makes it pretty much trivial to migrate between databases.But , sadly , I 'm still stuck supporting stuff that requires MS SQL Server because it was made by those damned " experts .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why the heck is he paying anything?
Just use MySql and be done with it.
It is certainly easier to use/setup/maintain than that crappy SQL Server stuff.
And it is free to boot!
sheesh.I have n great love of MS SQL Server, but it does have a place.
There is a ton of "Enterprisey" software that requires it.
(Or is only additionally supported on Oracle.
)  When the options are:1 - Spend a few grand on a server and software2 - Spend (a few - 2) grand on a server, then millions of dollars to have something custom developed, and wait three years before you can use itSometimes, option #1 is the sensible choice.
Especially if you get into a use case where MS SQL Server performs better than MySQL.That said, I'm currently working on some software for film post production that is being developed primarily with MySQL.
For my use, I can't see any reason that MS SQL Server or Oracle would help the project.
Of course, it will be pretty much trivial for me to migrate to Postgres or any of the others with a minimum of development effort because I'm not a psychotic brain-damaged puppy like genuine "Enterprisey" developers.Incidentally, I'm using Qt in c++.
If anybody else starting a database client type application is wondering, the Qt SQL stuff has worked really well on all my projects.
Moving from MySQL to MSSQL or whatever is pretty much trivial in terms of application code.
The only real PITA is building the right Qt database driver on your required platform(s).
Just a matter of tracking down all the right dependencies and whatnot.
Even if you aren't using the GUI stuff, you may want to check out Qt.
For smaller stuff, I use python, which has a consistent db-api, which also makes it pretty much trivial to migrate between databases.But, sadly, I'm still stuck supporting stuff that requires MS SQL Server because it was made by those damned "experts.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662306</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662460</id>
	<title>But will it run...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269857880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Anything better?

My biggest gripe with this Core War (yes I know, old school game fun as hell) is that almost nothing seems to really benefit.  The only apps I know are SQL, some web servers, rendering, cubes, and code breaking/intense math.  Beyond that, many things aren't embarassing parallel enough to make this matter.
<p>
The other part is that until we have better tools (or devs as many of the ones I know are REALLY dependent on Visual Studio and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET languages doing the hard stuff for them.  I know that with the advent of the newer proc archs ASM is damn near impossible, I don't think it's unreasonable for someone other than kernel or driver guys to understand the ramifications of multithreaded app design.  I've been looking at what it'd take to consider each proc it's on VM and use transparent memory sharing (like VMWare does) to treat each proc like a system unto itself and then treat things more like a distributed computing problem.
</p><p>
My only issue is that it's NOT a distributed compute problem so maybe I'm approaching it incorrectly but this highlights my problem, not many are well trained and experienced in this type of dev.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anything better ?
My biggest gripe with this Core War ( yes I know , old school game fun as hell ) is that almost nothing seems to really benefit .
The only apps I know are SQL , some web servers , rendering , cubes , and code breaking/intense math .
Beyond that , many things are n't embarassing parallel enough to make this matter .
The other part is that until we have better tools ( or devs as many of the ones I know are REALLY dependent on Visual Studio and .NET languages doing the hard stuff for them .
I know that with the advent of the newer proc archs ASM is damn near impossible , I do n't think it 's unreasonable for someone other than kernel or driver guys to understand the ramifications of multithreaded app design .
I 've been looking at what it 'd take to consider each proc it 's on VM and use transparent memory sharing ( like VMWare does ) to treat each proc like a system unto itself and then treat things more like a distributed computing problem .
My only issue is that it 's NOT a distributed compute problem so maybe I 'm approaching it incorrectly but this highlights my problem , not many are well trained and experienced in this type of dev .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anything better?
My biggest gripe with this Core War (yes I know, old school game fun as hell) is that almost nothing seems to really benefit.
The only apps I know are SQL, some web servers, rendering, cubes, and code breaking/intense math.
Beyond that, many things aren't embarassing parallel enough to make this matter.
The other part is that until we have better tools (or devs as many of the ones I know are REALLY dependent on Visual Studio and .NET languages doing the hard stuff for them.
I know that with the advent of the newer proc archs ASM is damn near impossible, I don't think it's unreasonable for someone other than kernel or driver guys to understand the ramifications of multithreaded app design.
I've been looking at what it'd take to consider each proc it's on VM and use transparent memory sharing (like VMWare does) to treat each proc like a system unto itself and then treat things more like a distributed computing problem.
My only issue is that it's NOT a distributed compute problem so maybe I'm approaching it incorrectly but this highlights my problem, not many are well trained and experienced in this type of dev.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662156</id>
	<title>I'm not sure about that</title>
	<author>bigtomrodney</author>
	<datestamp>1269856620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Almost all of the enterprise software we buy charges by the CPU and by the seat. For this purpose a CPU core is the same thing as seperately socketed CPU. Whatever about OS savings I think you'd save more in hardware and running costs than you would on software.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Almost all of the enterprise software we buy charges by the CPU and by the seat .
For this purpose a CPU core is the same thing as seperately socketed CPU .
Whatever about OS savings I think you 'd save more in hardware and running costs than you would on software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Almost all of the enterprise software we buy charges by the CPU and by the seat.
For this purpose a CPU core is the same thing as seperately socketed CPU.
Whatever about OS savings I think you'd save more in hardware and running costs than you would on software.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31666438</id>
	<title>Re:ever heard of MySQL?</title>
	<author>Splab</author>
	<datestamp>1269883500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Regarding performance, I'm pretty sure you aren't allowed to do tests on an oracle database license. However, IBM SolidDB in memory option is faster than anything else - IBM itself states Solid is 10 times faster than DB2 - in my own tests I've seen Solid perform 15-20\% faster than MySQL MyISAM, which is normally regarded as one of the fastest (not a real database I know, but still people point at MyISAM and says "It goes fast, must be best").</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Regarding performance , I 'm pretty sure you are n't allowed to do tests on an oracle database license .
However , IBM SolidDB in memory option is faster than anything else - IBM itself states Solid is 10 times faster than DB2 - in my own tests I 've seen Solid perform 15-20 \ % faster than MySQL MyISAM , which is normally regarded as one of the fastest ( not a real database I know , but still people point at MyISAM and says " It goes fast , must be best " ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Regarding performance, I'm pretty sure you aren't allowed to do tests on an oracle database license.
However, IBM SolidDB in memory option is faster than anything else - IBM itself states Solid is 10 times faster than DB2 - in my own tests I've seen Solid perform 15-20\% faster than MySQL MyISAM, which is normally regarded as one of the fastest (not a real database I know, but still people point at MyISAM and says "It goes fast, must be best").</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662192</id>
	<title>Re:Per-core licensing?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269856740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I believe MS always licensed SQL on a per-core basis, never on a per-socket basis. Thus, the article is BS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe MS always licensed SQL on a per-core basis , never on a per-socket basis .
Thus , the article is BS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe MS always licensed SQL on a per-core basis, never on a per-socket basis.
Thus, the article is BS.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662768</id>
	<title>Re:Cry me a MS licensing costs river!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269859260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>SQL server is solid<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Oracle is just as good if not hands down better</p> </div><p>Oracle is hands down better - a lot better. But, you go way off into the weeds with stupidity and ignorance.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>robustness to their product lines how long will it take for postgress to catch them??</p></div><p>Go read up about what's coming in PostgreSQL 9.0, which is right around the corner; plus its current feature set. Now go read about EnterpriseDB (commercial PostgreSQL offering). Not to mention, according to the FAA's (yes, that FAA) recent talk at PostgreSQL East Conference, PostgreSQL + PostGIS is roughly TWO ORDERS of magnitude faster than Oracle Spacial. Furthermore, recent benchmarks of Enterprise DB squarely pushes far into Oracle's warehousing territory; which also supports things like parallel load/query/indexing, etc. At the FAA, Oracle is being completely usurped by PostgreSQL. All new projects are to use PostgreSQL and/or PostGIS.</p><p>PostgreSQL has shown that it easily out scales MySQL for most common loads and its performance now trounces it in most cases. Plus, PostgreSQL's query optimizer makes MySQL's look like a toy. Additionally, even as far back as 2007, PostgreSQL was typically on par with Oracle's performance and scalability. More recently, PostgreSQL is typically on par or exceeds Oracle in performance. When talking about spacial queries, clearly according to the FAA, Oracle isn't even playing in the same park as PostgreSQL. And if you need seriously high end enterprise performance, commercial PostgreSQL offerings, such as EnterpriseDB, is here too.</p><p>So next time, before you start mindlessly mouthing off about open source catching up, you might want to put it into your head, its far more common for commercial needing to catch up with open source than the other way around; at least these days. Seriously, take a hard look at PostgreSQL. For the vast majority of users (small to medium size databases), MySQL, MSSQL, and Oracle shouldn't even be considered as PostgreSQL already has you covered. And frankly, MySQL isn't even in the same league as MSSQL, Oracle, and PostgreSQL.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>SQL server is solid ... Oracle is just as good if not hands down better Oracle is hands down better - a lot better .
But , you go way off into the weeds with stupidity and ignorance.robustness to their product lines how long will it take for postgress to catch them ?
? Go read up about what 's coming in PostgreSQL 9.0 , which is right around the corner ; plus its current feature set .
Now go read about EnterpriseDB ( commercial PostgreSQL offering ) .
Not to mention , according to the FAA 's ( yes , that FAA ) recent talk at PostgreSQL East Conference , PostgreSQL + PostGIS is roughly TWO ORDERS of magnitude faster than Oracle Spacial .
Furthermore , recent benchmarks of Enterprise DB squarely pushes far into Oracle 's warehousing territory ; which also supports things like parallel load/query/indexing , etc .
At the FAA , Oracle is being completely usurped by PostgreSQL .
All new projects are to use PostgreSQL and/or PostGIS.PostgreSQL has shown that it easily out scales MySQL for most common loads and its performance now trounces it in most cases .
Plus , PostgreSQL 's query optimizer makes MySQL 's look like a toy .
Additionally , even as far back as 2007 , PostgreSQL was typically on par with Oracle 's performance and scalability .
More recently , PostgreSQL is typically on par or exceeds Oracle in performance .
When talking about spacial queries , clearly according to the FAA , Oracle is n't even playing in the same park as PostgreSQL .
And if you need seriously high end enterprise performance , commercial PostgreSQL offerings , such as EnterpriseDB , is here too.So next time , before you start mindlessly mouthing off about open source catching up , you might want to put it into your head , its far more common for commercial needing to catch up with open source than the other way around ; at least these days .
Seriously , take a hard look at PostgreSQL .
For the vast majority of users ( small to medium size databases ) , MySQL , MSSQL , and Oracle should n't even be considered as PostgreSQL already has you covered .
And frankly , MySQL is n't even in the same league as MSSQL , Oracle , and PostgreSQL .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>SQL server is solid ... Oracle is just as good if not hands down better Oracle is hands down better - a lot better.
But, you go way off into the weeds with stupidity and ignorance.robustness to their product lines how long will it take for postgress to catch them?
?Go read up about what's coming in PostgreSQL 9.0, which is right around the corner; plus its current feature set.
Now go read about EnterpriseDB (commercial PostgreSQL offering).
Not to mention, according to the FAA's (yes, that FAA) recent talk at PostgreSQL East Conference, PostgreSQL + PostGIS is roughly TWO ORDERS of magnitude faster than Oracle Spacial.
Furthermore, recent benchmarks of Enterprise DB squarely pushes far into Oracle's warehousing territory; which also supports things like parallel load/query/indexing, etc.
At the FAA, Oracle is being completely usurped by PostgreSQL.
All new projects are to use PostgreSQL and/or PostGIS.PostgreSQL has shown that it easily out scales MySQL for most common loads and its performance now trounces it in most cases.
Plus, PostgreSQL's query optimizer makes MySQL's look like a toy.
Additionally, even as far back as 2007, PostgreSQL was typically on par with Oracle's performance and scalability.
More recently, PostgreSQL is typically on par or exceeds Oracle in performance.
When talking about spacial queries, clearly according to the FAA, Oracle isn't even playing in the same park as PostgreSQL.
And if you need seriously high end enterprise performance, commercial PostgreSQL offerings, such as EnterpriseDB, is here too.So next time, before you start mindlessly mouthing off about open source catching up, you might want to put it into your head, its far more common for commercial needing to catch up with open source than the other way around; at least these days.
Seriously, take a hard look at PostgreSQL.
For the vast majority of users (small to medium size databases), MySQL, MSSQL, and Oracle shouldn't even be considered as PostgreSQL already has you covered.
And frankly, MySQL isn't even in the same league as MSSQL, Oracle, and PostgreSQL.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662410</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31666488</id>
	<title>Forex Trading</title>
	<author>natheren</author>
	<datestamp>1269883980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>which computer would be the best for that? add your own computer if you like, these are just what i have found. Budget is under 700 bucks.
<a href="http://www.articlesbase.com/finance-articles/automated-forex-trading-system-find-the-best-automatic-forex-trading-tool-2066204.html" title="articlesbase.com" rel="nofollow">Forex Trading</a> [articlesbase.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>which computer would be the best for that ?
add your own computer if you like , these are just what i have found .
Budget is under 700 bucks .
Forex Trading [ articlesbase.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>which computer would be the best for that?
add your own computer if you like, these are just what i have found.
Budget is under 700 bucks.
Forex Trading [articlesbase.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662576</id>
	<title>Re:ever heard of MySQL?</title>
	<author>h4rr4r</author>
	<datestamp>1269858360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He probably cares about his data, so postgres is the only FREE alternative for him.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He probably cares about his data , so postgres is the only FREE alternative for him .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He probably cares about his data, so postgres is the only FREE alternative for him.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662306</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31663024</id>
	<title>Re:Naming scheme...</title>
	<author>hibiki\_r</author>
	<datestamp>1269860580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In this case, a former Formula 1 circuit, which hadn't produced a very entertaining race in years prior to its removal from the circus. Soon, Spa-Francorchamps</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In this case , a former Formula 1 circuit , which had n't produced a very entertaining race in years prior to its removal from the circus .
Soon , Spa-Francorchamps</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In this case, a former Formula 1 circuit, which hadn't produced a very entertaining race in years prior to its removal from the circus.
Soon, Spa-Francorchamps</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662704</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662758</id>
	<title>Re:Cry me a MS licensing costs river!</title>
	<author>rawler</author>
	<datestamp>1269859200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And the fee for linux is the cost of the admins -- the people who are good in the environment know they are good and their price goes up every year -- it takes about three years to become really proficient at most MS products - it might take half a year to really understand the linux environment and methodology if you are unfamiliar and then another 4 - 5 to gain that same profiencency equivalent.</p></div><p>Interestingly, I work for a company where the IT-department is a pure Microsoft-shop. Only windows-hosting and almost only C#-development for internal applications. In the technology department however, we operate a bunch of production-system for our customers, running mostly CentOS Linux. Lately, I've discovered that the Linux-admin-staff often writes simple script-solutions with their left hand, with equivalent complexity to systems written by trained developer in the IT department. And even though I personally often would rather see a more structured systematic approach to some problems, when listening to the end-users they almost always perceive they've gotten BETTER support and reliability from those scripts.</p><p>Point being that, a Linux-admin MAY cost a bit more than a windows-admin, and the learning-period might certainly be a bit longer, but I see much more productivity coming out of our Linux-crew than the windows-equivalent. More services hosted and administered per admin, and ~10 times the operational availability. Also, when more complex jobs needs being done (configuring network device, someone needs help with a tricky SQL query for a report, or needs someone to mirror a huge chunk of text-files into a searchable DB for performance), they usually come to the Linux-crew than the windows IS/IT.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>What I will give the person who goes the linux route is that once you are profiecient in Linux - gaining the same proficeincy in other systems is cake - basically because the they are just easier to use in the first place.</p></div><p>Definitely matter of oppinion. Personally, I've never found anything "easy" about windows. Sure, the very limited amount of things you can do within three button-presses is usually simple enough (interestingly the same goes for modern Linux Desktops/Simple Server Setups). However, once something breaks, or you need/desire to stride outside the comfy gui-box, just forget about it. (IMHO) For example, a standard CentOS5 server install comes with high-availability software that from commercial vendors (IBM and HP, I don't know if Microsoft can even match the fully distributed transactional storage components) START at ~100K euro. For those money, I can let one high-school self-taught Linux hacker spend 2 years in researching and fine-tuning for the JUST the entrance fees of the proprietary variant. How would you estimate my chances of getting some more use out of that admin meanwhile?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And the fee for linux is the cost of the admins -- the people who are good in the environment know they are good and their price goes up every year -- it takes about three years to become really proficient at most MS products - it might take half a year to really understand the linux environment and methodology if you are unfamiliar and then another 4 - 5 to gain that same profiencency equivalent.Interestingly , I work for a company where the IT-department is a pure Microsoft-shop .
Only windows-hosting and almost only C # -development for internal applications .
In the technology department however , we operate a bunch of production-system for our customers , running mostly CentOS Linux .
Lately , I 've discovered that the Linux-admin-staff often writes simple script-solutions with their left hand , with equivalent complexity to systems written by trained developer in the IT department .
And even though I personally often would rather see a more structured systematic approach to some problems , when listening to the end-users they almost always perceive they 've gotten BETTER support and reliability from those scripts.Point being that , a Linux-admin MAY cost a bit more than a windows-admin , and the learning-period might certainly be a bit longer , but I see much more productivity coming out of our Linux-crew than the windows-equivalent .
More services hosted and administered per admin , and ~ 10 times the operational availability .
Also , when more complex jobs needs being done ( configuring network device , someone needs help with a tricky SQL query for a report , or needs someone to mirror a huge chunk of text-files into a searchable DB for performance ) , they usually come to the Linux-crew than the windows IS/IT.What I will give the person who goes the linux route is that once you are profiecient in Linux - gaining the same proficeincy in other systems is cake - basically because the they are just easier to use in the first place.Definitely matter of oppinion .
Personally , I 've never found anything " easy " about windows .
Sure , the very limited amount of things you can do within three button-presses is usually simple enough ( interestingly the same goes for modern Linux Desktops/Simple Server Setups ) .
However , once something breaks , or you need/desire to stride outside the comfy gui-box , just forget about it .
( IMHO ) For example , a standard CentOS5 server install comes with high-availability software that from commercial vendors ( IBM and HP , I do n't know if Microsoft can even match the fully distributed transactional storage components ) START at ~ 100K euro .
For those money , I can let one high-school self-taught Linux hacker spend 2 years in researching and fine-tuning for the JUST the entrance fees of the proprietary variant .
How would you estimate my chances of getting some more use out of that admin meanwhile ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And the fee for linux is the cost of the admins -- the people who are good in the environment know they are good and their price goes up every year -- it takes about three years to become really proficient at most MS products - it might take half a year to really understand the linux environment and methodology if you are unfamiliar and then another 4 - 5 to gain that same profiencency equivalent.Interestingly, I work for a company where the IT-department is a pure Microsoft-shop.
Only windows-hosting and almost only C#-development for internal applications.
In the technology department however, we operate a bunch of production-system for our customers, running mostly CentOS Linux.
Lately, I've discovered that the Linux-admin-staff often writes simple script-solutions with their left hand, with equivalent complexity to systems written by trained developer in the IT department.
And even though I personally often would rather see a more structured systematic approach to some problems, when listening to the end-users they almost always perceive they've gotten BETTER support and reliability from those scripts.Point being that, a Linux-admin MAY cost a bit more than a windows-admin, and the learning-period might certainly be a bit longer, but I see much more productivity coming out of our Linux-crew than the windows-equivalent.
More services hosted and administered per admin, and ~10 times the operational availability.
Also, when more complex jobs needs being done (configuring network device, someone needs help with a tricky SQL query for a report, or needs someone to mirror a huge chunk of text-files into a searchable DB for performance), they usually come to the Linux-crew than the windows IS/IT.What I will give the person who goes the linux route is that once you are profiecient in Linux - gaining the same proficeincy in other systems is cake - basically because the they are just easier to use in the first place.Definitely matter of oppinion.
Personally, I've never found anything "easy" about windows.
Sure, the very limited amount of things you can do within three button-presses is usually simple enough (interestingly the same goes for modern Linux Desktops/Simple Server Setups).
However, once something breaks, or you need/desire to stride outside the comfy gui-box, just forget about it.
(IMHO) For example, a standard CentOS5 server install comes with high-availability software that from commercial vendors (IBM and HP, I don't know if Microsoft can even match the fully distributed transactional storage components) START at ~100K euro.
For those money, I can let one high-school self-taught Linux hacker spend 2 years in researching and fine-tuning for the JUST the entrance fees of the proprietary variant.
How would you estimate my chances of getting some more use out of that admin meanwhile?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662410</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662306</id>
	<title>ever heard of MySQL?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269857280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why the heck is he paying anything?  Just use MySql and be done with it.  It is certainly easier to use/setup/maintain than that crappy SQL Server stuff.  And it is free to boot!  sheesh.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why the heck is he paying anything ?
Just use MySql and be done with it .
It is certainly easier to use/setup/maintain than that crappy SQL Server stuff .
And it is free to boot !
sheesh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why the heck is he paying anything?
Just use MySql and be done with it.
It is certainly easier to use/setup/maintain than that crappy SQL Server stuff.
And it is free to boot!
sheesh.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31663074</id>
	<title>Re:But will it run...</title>
	<author>blair1q</author>
	<datestamp>1269860820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>multicore it immediately gets most OS background tasks out of the way of your browser</p><p>and if you have foreground multitasking going on, like a music app or maybe a movie in the corner of the screen, plus a compile in one window or some other data-crunching app, you find yourself waiting noticeably less when you interact with anything.</p><p>but since you're the only computing device in the vicinity whose time has time-value, that is ultimately the goal.</p><p>throwing 2, 4, or even 6 cores at that is a win.</p><p>of course, it will be hard for a desktop user to care about 12 cores.  the average person can only manage 7 tasks total in real-time, and that includes the things you're doing on your computer plus all the IRL stuff you're paying attention to.  you'd have to hire an assistant to do extra stuff on your machine to make it pay.  or virtualize yourself and have your virtual self dream up things to do for itself...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>multicore it immediately gets most OS background tasks out of the way of your browserand if you have foreground multitasking going on , like a music app or maybe a movie in the corner of the screen , plus a compile in one window or some other data-crunching app , you find yourself waiting noticeably less when you interact with anything.but since you 're the only computing device in the vicinity whose time has time-value , that is ultimately the goal.throwing 2 , 4 , or even 6 cores at that is a win.of course , it will be hard for a desktop user to care about 12 cores .
the average person can only manage 7 tasks total in real-time , and that includes the things you 're doing on your computer plus all the IRL stuff you 're paying attention to .
you 'd have to hire an assistant to do extra stuff on your machine to make it pay .
or virtualize yourself and have your virtual self dream up things to do for itself.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>multicore it immediately gets most OS background tasks out of the way of your browserand if you have foreground multitasking going on, like a music app or maybe a movie in the corner of the screen, plus a compile in one window or some other data-crunching app, you find yourself waiting noticeably less when you interact with anything.but since you're the only computing device in the vicinity whose time has time-value, that is ultimately the goal.throwing 2, 4, or even 6 cores at that is a win.of course, it will be hard for a desktop user to care about 12 cores.
the average person can only manage 7 tasks total in real-time, and that includes the things you're doing on your computer plus all the IRL stuff you're paying attention to.
you'd have to hire an assistant to do extra stuff on your machine to make it pay.
or virtualize yourself and have your virtual self dream up things to do for itself...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662460</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_2033230_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31663700
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662306
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_2033230_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31664314
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662346
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_2033230_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31667438
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662226
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662140
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_2033230_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31676714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662140
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_2033230_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31664048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662420
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_2033230_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31667238
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662150
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_2033230_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31687652
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31664852
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31663628
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662226
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662140
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_2033230_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662290
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_2033230_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31669904
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662150
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_2033230_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662306
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_2033230_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31668576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662150
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_2033230_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662140
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_2033230_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31663690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662420
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_2033230_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662166
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_2033230_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31663074
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662460
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_2033230_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31666632
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662306
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_2033230_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31668468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662200
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_2033230_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31666260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31663628
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662226
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662140
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_2033230_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31664582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662454
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_2033230_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31664420
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662150
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_2033230_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31663024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662420
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_2033230_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31664790
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662346
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_2033230_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31667472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662460
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_2033230_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31664932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31663628
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662226
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662140
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_2033230_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662150
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_2033230_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662306
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_2033230_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31666640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662150
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_2033230_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31666566
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31663292
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_2033230_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662460
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_2033230_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31664810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662420
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_2033230_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31665004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662454
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_2033230_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31666438
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662306
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_2033230_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31665682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662150
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_2033230_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662460
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_2033230_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31664292
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662346
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_2033230_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31744858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662460
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_2033230_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31663336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662150
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_2033230_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662460
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_2033230_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31663218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662140
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_2033230_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662150
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_2033230_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31665630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31663628
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662226
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662140
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_2033230_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662346
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_2033230_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31664960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31663292
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_2033230_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662420
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_2033230_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31666936
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662550
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662150
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_2033230_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662538
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662306
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_29_2033230.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662150
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31663336
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662410
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662856
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31669904
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31666640
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31668576
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662618
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662758
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31667238
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31665682
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662768
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31664420
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662550
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31666936
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_29_2033230.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31666766
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_29_2033230.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662166
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662302
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_29_2033230.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662346
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31664292
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31664314
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662754
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31664790
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_29_2033230.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662140
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662226
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662492
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31667438
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31663628
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31665630
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31666260
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31664932
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31664852
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31687652
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31663218
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662192
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31676714
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_29_2033230.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31663292
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31666566
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31664960
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_29_2033230.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662156
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_29_2033230.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662420
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662842
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31664810
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31663690
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31664048
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662704
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31663024
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_29_2033230.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662200
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662726
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31668468
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_29_2033230.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662460
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31744858
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31663074
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662752
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662810
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31667472
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662612
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662556
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_29_2033230.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662454
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31665004
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31664582
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_29_2033230.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662290
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662776
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_29_2033230.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662306
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662538
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31663700
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662576
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662698
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31666438
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31662660
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2033230.31666632
</commentlist>
</conversation>
