back to article US judge rejects Oracle's fraud claim against HP

A US judge has dismissed an Oracle fraud claim against HP in the companies' ongoing legal battle over the Itanium platform. Last year, Oracle discontinued its software support for Itanium chips, alleging that Intel had made it clear the microprocessors' time was nearly up and that it would now be focusing on its x86 chips. HP …


This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Anonymous Coward

    Geriatric Dispute

    Mr Larry should really consider handing over the steering wheel to somebody else. In his old days he develops attitudes which are not good for business. HP was one of the best resellers of Oracle products for a long time. They ditched AllBase SQL, their own RDBMS for Oracle.

    What kind of entrepreneur is he ? One who wants to limit sales ???

    1. Allison Park

      HP and Oracle are liars

      OK Oracle cannot sue HP for fraud because of their lying. Big deal.

      Oracle certainly caught HP not being truthful to its customers and that is 100 times worse.

      "10 years of commited roadmap" "the longest roadmap in the industry" and they all knew the intel agreement only lasted until kittson in 2014 and Intel wont even make the chips after 2017.

      The other key thing to see is Kittson will not be tukwila/poulson socket compatible like HP is still saying. It will be a xeon socket. When will HP finally admit that.

      I guess they can't go forward with the handicapped Kittson idea to pretend there are two versions.

      Oracle is not clean either. SPARC64 is dead and they are still "no commit" except for that one solaris vp that let the cat out of the bag.


      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        HP and Oracle are liars → #

        Yeah, SPARC64 is dead. They are ditching it, socket compatibility and all, in either M4, if they can't finish the redesign in time, or M5, but it is definitely dead. They will attempt to move the M Series install base to Sparc T chips (but call them Mx chips).

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Pot, kettle, black?

        Allison, are you 100% sure that the person (no doubt your smug IBM rep) that gave you these "facts" was not a liar as well?

        Care to actually reference any sources (and I don't meen uncorroborated quotes with no context on Oracle's website)?

        Thought not.

        1. Kebabbert


          "...Care to actually reference any sources (and I don't meen uncorroborated quotes with no context on Oracle's website)?..."

          Allison Park has never referenced any sources. I have asked numerous times. According to wikipedia; making unsubstantiated negative claims is FUD.

        2. Allison Park
          Thumb Up


          Here you go. Oracle was finally allowed to release the information they got from HP. If you compare the blacked out version to the clean version that is where you get all the facts I stated.

          This is turning out to be a romance novel gone bad.

  2. Greybeaver
    Paris Hilton

    The king is dead, long live the king.

    Well, ya know, them hardware bits are doomed from they inception.

    Years of slow death is still years of utility and income stream for the owners.

    Buying and killing Peoplesoft was Oracle's highlight move in the last few years.

    Dunno why you'd kill a goose layin' golden eggs, though. Even if the goose was lame.

    1. Tom 13

      And here I thought the lame golden goose was better

      than the physically fit golden goose because it was easier to catch when it tries to escape.

      Thank-you, thank-you. I'll be here all week and don't forget to tip your waiter or waitress.

  3. cocknee

    How Naive

    Don't you think he and the board costed this out in terms of likely returns and risks. He's a penny-pincher that makes Michael O'Leary look like a charity case.

    This was obviously on the cards since (well, before) the Sun acquisition.

    For those existing customers on HP-OX, there's the nice price hike for licences compared to the latest Sparc's to contend with and this may dissuade others from pursuing the risky path of Itanium.

    Only a few people know the truth, HP and Intel being those in the know, plus maybe an ex-CEO now working for Oracle perhaps?

  4. ratfox

    Good, good

    Oracle cannot lose enough lawsuits for my taste.

  5. Anonymous Coward

    Yes and Yes

    Yes, Itanium is a dead end. HP was the only company keeping it alive, presumably through payments of one sort or another, as they have over 90% of the Itanium server sales. Who hasn't known that for the past five years?

    Yes, Oracle is only killing Itanium to try to open up some space to push their Exa-xxx. Itanium's future looked equally as bleak in 2009 (prior to the Sun acquisition) as it did in early 2011 when Oracle stumbled across the shocking information that Itanium's future did not look bright (people had only been making Itanic jokes for 10 years). Oracle was more than happy to push their customers on to Itanium in 2008 and 2009 to keep them away from IBM. Pretty poor strategy on Oracle's part. If they had just let Itanium take its course, it would have died in the next five years anyway. Now they have boat loads of formerly HP-UX and Oracle customers running to IBM Power and DB/Deuce.


    Itanium is dead

    Well, at my shop anyways. Replaced all of our Alpha Servers with either Linux or AIX. HP could be right that Oracle was trying scare tatics for HP customers to replace HPUX w/ Solaris but majority I would imagine go with HP Intel Servers over Oracle boxes anyways. Also, Redhat and Microsoft latest versions will not run on Itanium so it shouldn't be a big surprise by HP that another software company insn't going to support Itanium going forward.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Thumb Up

      Itanium is dead → #

      Agree, if you want Unix, AIX is the only viable option. Since Power 7, AIX just has a pretty great price per performance. If you do not want Unix, then it is Linux on the x86 box of your choice (assuming your choice is IBM or HP anyway). The problem with replacing HP-UX with Linux on x86 is that Oracle is even being a bully about standard RHEL-VMware on x86. They do not officially support VMware and are dangling the threat out there that they may drop RHEL support for their DB and applications.

      I think Oracle could care less about Solaris - Sparc servers. They have no interest in selling Solaris - Sparc servers for WebSphere or JBoss. M Series, the Fujitsu form, is dead. They want Exa-xxx and to lock in the whole stack.

      1. Phil 4

        @ Wunderbra

        You are the joke-master. LMFHO!!!

        AIX is the only viable option? Yes, AIX is the only viable option if you are running Power-choosing AIX locks you in to Power. Has IBM ever innovated with AIX or just continue to copy Solaris? Containers = WPARs, Trusted Solaris = Trusted AIX, DTrace = probevue, OpenSolaris = AIX 7 open beta, Solaris 8/9 containers = IBM AIX 5.3 WPARs for AIX 7. The list goes on. So now that Solaris 11 is out, lets see if AIX can catch up on cloud technologies!

        As for proving great Power7 price/performance, that’s going to be difficult. On TPC-C, SPARC T3 beats Power7 on $/tpmC, on TPC-H @ 1TB & 3TB, SPARC T4 beats Power7. And if you price out the BOM's on SPECjEnterprise2010, you'll see that SPARC T4 again whips Power7 on price/performance. So where does Power7 show superior price/perf?

        And its clear that Oracle, is investing heavily in Solaris and SPARC as it’s the only way they will be able to beat IBM and keep Intel in check. Why would Oracle publish a 5-year public SPARC & Solaris roadmaps with actual future dates and performance gains if it won't deliver?

        When roadmaps are made public, the company's reputation is on the line. I don't see IBM publishing Power / AIX roadmaps publicly with dates / expected performance gains? Good thing it didn’t for Power7+ which now appears dead! Is there an AIX8 on any roadmap?

        And as for websphere, before Oracle acquired Sun, the top platform for running websphere was the SPARC T-Series.

        1. Kebabbert

          Phil 4

          And please dont forget that IBM is going to kill AIX too:

          x86 is today only 10% slower than POWER7 on some benchmarks (for instance, SAP). When x86 catches up and surpasses POWER, why would you buy expensive and slower POWER gear, than going with faster and cheaper x86? Then people will stop buying POWER, and sales will dwindle.

          And because IBM only does high margin business, IBM does not want to lower POWER prices even more, because then POWER will be low margin business. And when that happens, POWER will be killed. Together with AIX. Just so people know this and be careful when examining POWER alternatives.

          1. Allison Park

            Kebabbert a.k.a. troll

            do you have a cut and paste of this BS on your desktop? please how many times do we need to see a news article from 2003 which IBM disputed in the actual article.

            go crawl back under the bridge you crawled out of you are such a troll

            1. Kebabbert

              @Allison Park

              Are you calling ME a troll? You are too funny. At least I only cite sources I can refer back too, and never make anything up myself. Everything I say, I can backup. That is not trolling, I am only citing others. You are shooting the messenger, as I am only the messenger.

              If you mean that IBM is trolling in the article I posted, fine. But dont call me Troll. You on the other hand, is a well known troll and FUDer. You claim false and negative things, only to put IBM's competitors in bad light. And when someone ask you for references, you can never show any. The reason you never show any references, is because you make everything up. If you read the wikipedia article on FUD, you will see that your behavior fulfills the definition of FUD.

              Me on the other hand, is never FUDing, because I always back up my claims with trustworthy links, such as links from IBM. If you read the wikipedia article, this is not FUD. In fact, it is the opposite; sane and sound argumentation.

              1. Allison Park


                Dear Troll

                Here you go. Oracle was finally allowed to release the information they got from HP. If you compare the blacked out version to the clean version that is where you get all the facts I stated.

                This is turning out to be a romance novel gone bad.


                Meow, Hiss

                1. Kebabbert

                  @Allison Park

                  I remarked that you never show any references. In response to my remark, you show a link to prove that in this case, you do indeed show references.


                  I did not really understand your point. Can you clarify it? That link only shows jibberish. What is your point, posting that link? Can you clarify the connection? What do you want to prove, and what does your link prove?

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Thumb Down

            Phil 4 → #

            You really have the latest info, a January of 2003 article? This was one off hand remark made by one IBM executive that was refuted in the same article.

            "Steve's view is really on a multidecade time frame," said Nick Bowen, vice president of Unix and Intel server software development at IBM. "Over time, Linux and Intel and Windows will catch up to where we were yesterday (with AIX). When they catch up, we'll be two steps down the road."

            "x86 is today only 10% slower than POWER7 on some benchmarks (for instance, SAP). "

            1) Unix systems are about more than processing power. There is still RAS value in not having disparate OS, hypervisor, system tools and hardware from a bunch vendors that hate each other. 2) According to Intel's benchmark. According to IBM, Power handles many times the workload of x86. You can make benchmarks look however you want to make them look.

            "And because IBM only does high margin business, IBM does not want to lower POWER prices even more, because then POWER will be low margin business. And when that happens, POWER will be killed. Together with AIX. Just so people know this and be careful when examining POWER alternatives."

            If people are examining Power alternatives, it is x86 based upon cost. Unix, 10 years down the road, will look like mainframe and mini-computers (AS/400). IBM will own the market, albeit a much smaller market.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Thumb Down


          All of those innovations you mentioned were originally in IBM MVS and z/OS decades before the Unix client/server model came out. Solaris copied the RAS features in MVS, the dominant platform, and then AIX copied Solaris? (i.e. brought their IP from System z to mid-range). IBM invented just about everything in the tech world, so it would not be advisable to get into a "who created what first" war.

          It has been widely reported and is widely known that Oracle cheats like crazy on TPC-C or any other benchmark. They throw a boat load of Flash, multiple times the memory and a ton of extra cores behind their benchmarks and then say they beat IBM. The only thing they proved with their latest round of TPC-C is that Flash beats disk. Read all about:

          The PoC is the only way to determine actual performance. As Power has 55% of the Unix market share and growing every quarter, it is pretty clear how the PoCs are coming out.

          Simple point that no one can refute. If Sparc T4 is the mind blowing for Java, why does Oracle use x86 instead of Sparc T4 in Exalogic (a Java machine)? It makes zero sense.

          1. Kebabbert


            You are posting so much weird things I dont know where to start. I will select a few things, as I have work to do.

            First you claim that Solaris copied from AIX. That is not true. It is true that IBM had done great innovations long time ago, for instance, in virtualization. It is true that Solaris copied LPAR and called it LDOMs. But of lately, IBM has not done anything innovative at all. Nowadays IBM is just copying others. For instance Probevue, WPAR, etc. Have you heard about the Sun BlackBox? It is a container full of servers, and IBM copied that too. IBM mocked Sun for Niagara cpus having many cores, and said that "cpus with only one strong core is best, because databases prefer strong cores". IBM talked about stronger single cores, clocked at 7-8GHz. But how does the POWER7 look like? Many lower clocked cores, just like Niagara!

            What have IBM done lately, that is cool tech wise? Nothing.



            Regarding if Oracle cheats with using SSD disks, etc. Well, that is not cheating. Everyone can use SSD disks but even if IBM does that, IBM can not break Oracle's records. OTOH, IBM cheats. IBM claims that one Mainframe can replace 1.500 x86 servers. Well, it turns out that x86 servers idle and the Mainframe is 100% loaded! That is cheating.

            Also, the z196 Mainframe cpu, dubbed "worlds fastest" is actually quite slow. It is much slower than a high end x86 cpu. So what happens if some of the x86 servers do some work? Then the mainframe chokes, and certainly it can not replace 1.500 x86 servers doing work. If I boot 5 mainframes that idles, on my laptop, can I claim that my laptop can replace 5 mainframes? No, that would be FUD, right? You will never see SPECINT benchmarks for Mainframe cpus, from IBM - for a reason. They are slow cpus. In fact, if you emulate a Mainframe on a x86 server, you can get 3.200 MIPS - which is a decent Mainframe. Thus, a few slow 196 cpus can not replace 1.500 faster x86 cpus.

          2. Kebabbert


            Post continued here:

            Regarding why Oracle is not using SPARC T4 in their Java servers. Well, the T4 is new. It can take years before they can fully support changes in such servers. It is desktop things. This is enterprise. It takes long time before any changes are made. And still, the T4 is more than twice as fast than POWER7 on TPC-H.



            Regarding when IBM is going to kill AIX.

            POWER6 servers where several times faster than x86 and costed 5-10x more.

            POWER7 servers are ~10% faster in some benchmarks and only cost 3x more than x86.

            POWER8 servers, will they be just as fast as x86? No one knows, but that is a reasonable guess if we look at historical data and analyze the trend. In that case, IBM has to lower the price even more. Maybe 1.5x. Why would IBM continue sell such low margin servers? Larry Ellison said that he does not care if x86 server sales go to zero, because it is low margin. Larry prefers high end black boxes, tailored to performance and RAS. That is where the margin is. How long do you think IBM will continue doing expensive and slower POWER cpus, when x86 has caught up? Not for long, when IBM starts to loose money.

            One way forward could be if IBM ported AIX to x86, but that will not happen. Instead, IBM has officially said that AIX is going to be replaced by Linux. You better start off learning Linux, boys. Intel and AMD is pouring R&D on x86, much more than IBM can do. IBM is a profit hungry company, IBM will not keep doing POWER just for idealogical reasons. x86 will catch up. POWER will die. Why keep AIX around in that case? AIX will die, IBM has even confirmed that. Of course, this is on a multi decade timeframe. The first decade has passed. In another 10 years, x86 will be faster. And cheaper. And better RAS.

            OTOH, Solaris runs on fast and cheap x86. HP-UX is not looking good. AIX is going to be killed off, IBM has confirmed this. Solaris is open sourced and will live.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Most recent absurdity

              I didn't say that Solaris copied AIX. I said that everyone originally copied IBM MVS, so any comment about AIX (IBM) copying Solaris is absurd. IBM took their technology from high-end and brought it to mid-range. As Solaris had already copied IBM high-end, AIX and Solaris are going to look similar. Solaris copies IBM MVS, AIX copies IBM MVS = AIX copied Solaris? No, they are both poor man's mainframe RAS functions.

              What has IBM done recently that is innovative from a technical perspective? How about leading the world in patents produced for the last 18 consecutive years? IBM makes billions licensing their IP to other technology companies. How about sequencing the human genome? How about being the first computer company to break the petaflop barrier (the 3 minute mile of computing)? How about Watson? Have you seen IBM's carbon nano technology which will eventually replace silicon for chips?..... IBM researchers have invented new forms of mathematics (fractal geometry), invented DRAM, RISC, magnetic disk storage, relational databases. IBM researchers have won five Nobel prizes. With the exception of Unix (AT&T created), everything you are discussing was invented by IBM.

              What is Oracle's innovation? Admittedly getting the idea for their RDBMS from an IBM white paper and buying a bunch of companies?

              You are definitely a troll. Pulling a 10 year old comment made by an IBM Software Group executive that is not involved with AIX which is immediately retracted by the AIX executive is the heart of trolldome.

              1. Kebabbert


                Sure, I agree that IBM did lot long time ago. Specially in virtualization. Yes, that is correct.

                But recently, what cool have IBM done in Operating Systems? What new tech does AIX have, that everyone wants and drools over? Nothing. AIX only copies from others nowadays. Development has slowed on AIX, I have read in an article here. It scales bad, recently AIX had to be rewritten to be able to handle P795's few 32 cpus. IBM is betting on Linux, and increasing resources on Linux. So what cool have IBM done on AIX that everyone wants? Nothing.

                OTOH, Solaris invents, and everyone copies or ports from Solaris. ZFS is unique because it protects against data corruption. DTrace is unique because it allows of observability unheard of. Zones is copied both in AIX and in Linux. etc.

                Sure IBM has lot of patents. But why? Just to patent troll! That is the reason. Much of the IBM patents are worth nothing, but only used to black mail other companies for money. Here is one incident where IBM tries to black mail Sun for some ridiculous patents. Sun explains those patents will not hold in court. IBM's attournes says "ok maybe you are right, but we have 10.000 more patents, do you want us to find some patents you really breach or are you going to pay us?". Sun paid, and IBM went on to the next company on their hit list.


                On another occasion, IBM sued Sun for an equally silly patent on RISC, which said "if you make it simpler, it is more efficient". Sun nearly went bankrupt. After that, Sun started to patent everything, just for defense against patent trolls such as IBM:


                Or other patent trolls such as Microsoft or Apple:


                1. Anonymous Coward
                  Thumb Down

                  Oh the irony

                  Oracle acquired Sun for Java purely to cash in on their patents. They had no interest in their hardware, and tried desperately to pawn it off on HP while retaining Sun's Java IP and MySQL (to ensure it did not compete with their DB). Are you familiar with Oracle's multi-billion lawsuit against Android OEMs? How about their multi-billion lawsuit against SAP for IP infringements that cost them nothing?

                  You are the worst at citing sources in the history of the world. Do you think we will just accept them at face value and not click the links?

                  "My own introduction to the realities of the patent system came in the 1980s, when my client, Sun Microsystems--then a small company--was accused by IBM of patent infringement."

                  The article was written by Sun's ATTORNEY! Whose side of the story do you think he is going to take?

                  Second, "if you make it simpler, it is more efficient" is James Gosling's, again Sun Engineer, interpretation of RISC. John Cocke, IBM researcher that created RISC, won a National Science Medal and a National Medal of Technology for the innovation. I doubt the National Science Foundation gave him a medal for writing "if you make it simpler, it is more efficient." Again, that is Sun's side of the story.

                  1. Kebabbert


                    "...[Oracle] had no interest in their hardware..."

                    Maybe that was true some time ago, I dont know. You dont know either. But fact is that Oracle is today investing more in Solaris and in SPARC than Sun ever did. This is official. Larry praises Solaris as the best Unix out there. And as we have seen, IBM has done nothing new on the Operating System side for the last decades. AIX is not developed anymore - it is only maintained. IBM is betting on Linux instead and increasing R&D heavily on Linux. Oracle is targeting POWER and AIX with SPARC and Solaris. That is a fact, Larry wants to obliterate POWER and AIX. Larry can not go to war without investing heavily in SPARC and Solaris.



                    "...You are the worst at citing sources in the history of the world. Do you think we will just accept them at face value and not click the links?..."

                    This is not very clever of you. The ONLY reason to provide links, is that other check them up. That is what you do in academia, provide sources so others can check them up and so that we can have a debate. That is the reason I provide links. Why do you think it is important to provide references in academia? Hope that no researcher will check up the references??? Maybe you should go to academia first, before you draw strange conclusions? If you had gone to uni, you would have provided links and references so that all of us could read them, contemplate and raise objections in a debate and discussion. Otherwise, if you are not providing references, you are just FUDing and Trolling.

                    So now you are complaining that I provide links, whereas you dont provide references. At the same time, you are calling me Troll! :o) The irony. You dont really understand what you are saying. Where are your references? Nowhere. That is pure FUDing and Trolling.

                    Ergo, Wunderbar1 and Allison Park is FUDing and Trolling. Because I am accused of providing references - I can not be FUDing nor Trolling. :o)

                  2. Kebabbert


                    Now you are dismissing all these links I provide, because they are Sun related. Do you think that is unbelievable that IBM would patent troll, just as described? Do you think it is unbelievable that IBM would patent troll on a silly patent as this?

                    "...The [IBM ]chief blue suit orchestrated the presentation of the seven patents IBM claimed were infringed [by Sun], the most prominent of which was IBM's notorious "fat lines" patent:To turn a thin line on a computer screen into a broad line, you go up and down an equal distance from the ends of the thin line and then connect the four points. You probably learned this technique for turning a line into a rectangle in seventh-grade geometry, and, doubtless, you believe it was devised by Euclid or some such 3,000-year-old thinker..."

                    Do you really think this story could not happen? IBM would never behave like this? Or... could maybe this story happened? IBM does indeed abuse their patents?


                    There are many stories about IBM abusing patents. One example, Mainframe division. IBM has sued other numerous times to sustain their monopoly on Mainframes, for instance the word "FUD" comes from IBM FUDing other companies. Without IBM, no "FUD" word:


                    You know, all these stories are written by IBMs victims; company AAA, company BBB, company CCC. etc. It must be very convenient to dismiss all of these stories because "AAA got sued by IBM, what side of the story do you think he is going to take?". is this really your reason to dismiss all these horrendous stories about patent abuse? Are you serious, or are you trolling?

                    "Never trust the defender, because he will try to tell bad stories about the aggressor!" - or? Normally, one should listen to both sides, but you are saying "only listen to IBM side". Some would call this... slightly biased, yes?

                  3. This post has been deleted by its author

                    1. Kebabbert


                      PS. Exa-xxx servers use Linux or Solaris. Some customers require Linux, instead of Solaris. I dont know if Oracle Linux yet supports SPARC T4, I dont think that is the case. So, Linux does not support T4 yet, so Exa-xx can not use T4.

                      Also, Exa-xxx servers use the beta version Solaris 11 Express. They dont yet use the sharp release Solaris 11. Why are they still using Solaris 11 Express? Maybe it takes time to test everything? If Oracle will not release Exxa with sharp Solaris 11 which is a small upgrade, why do you think Oracle will change to T4 which requires large surgery? Maybe you are just plain wrong in many of your conclusions.

                      Thus, SPARC will find it's way into Exa-xxx but it will take time. Let us go back to this discussion when some time has passed. You are just wrong, thinking it takes no time to upgrade. These stuff are Enterprise and that takes time. Same with Java, it is not upgraded quickly, Java is enterprise.

              2. Kebabbert



                Or another one of IBMs result to brag over recently. IBM claimed to have simulated a cat brain and it was highlighted everywhere in IT-media. An expert on the area, found it was a scam:


                Have you heard about the "Worlds fastest cpu" z196?


                "IBM (NYSE: IBM) today announced details of the world's fastest computer chip -- the microprocessor in a new version of the IBM mainframe that begins shipping to customers on Sept. 10."

                But surely you did not miss that the z196 at 5.26GHz and L1+L2 cache at nearly 200MB, is slower than an high end x86. How can it be the worlds fastest cpu? How can the z196 mainframe with 24 cpus, replace 1.500 servers which use x86 cpus? Normally, a slow cpu can not replace a faster cpu - unless IBM is doing the marketing.

                Another example of lies from IBM. IBM claims the POWER7 has 153GB/sec band width. It is also a lie:


                "...each POWER7 CPU in Power770/Power780 drives no more than 8 DIMMs over 8 fully-buffered channels. So simultaneous reads/writes on the same channel are not possible. 8channels*8 bytes/channel * 1.067 GT/s = 68 GB/s peak. In Power750/755 you have ~half of that. There are also published STREAM Triad scores for Power755 - 121,940 MB/s for 4 sockets = 30.5 GB/s per socket...."

                Never. Ever. Trust. IBM.

              3. Kebabbert


                "...You are definitely a troll. Pulling a 10 year old comment made by an IBM Software Group executive that is not involved with AIX which is immediately retracted by the AIX executive is the heart of trolldome..."

                Great troll I am. At least I am posting credible links, you, on the other hand, is making things up, and distorts and FUDs: "why does not ExaLogic use T4? The reason is because Oracle lies about T4 benchmarks, it is slow!". The reason ExaLogic does not use T4, is because ExaLogic has many cpus, and T4 only scales to 4 sockets. Now, stop the FUD about T4, will you? It is a well known fact that T4 is more than 2x faster than POWER7 on TPC-H.

                Regarding the IBM link where several IBM people talks about killing off AIX, another executive says it is on a multi decade time frame. The first decade has passed. I dont see where I am lying or trolling? At least I am only citing IBM on stuff. That is not trolling nor FUDing.

                I would like to see you and Allison Park showing credible links, just as I am doing. But you will not do that. Why? Only trolls make up FUD, and dont post trolls. And also, they are quick to yell troll on others, even when they post links directly from IBM. I mean, how much more credible can it be? It is impossible to be more credible. I am not making things up, just read all my links. Where are your links? Can you just post one single credible link? No?

          3. Phil 4

            refuting SPARC T4 & Java

            Heres an easy one to refute: First, Oracle offers choice. Just like IBM and HP. Secondly, Exalogic (and Exadata) came out before SPARC T4 and now that SPARC T4 has been announced, so has SPARC SuperCluster which includes *both* Exadata and Exalogic technologies so it can run both and even simultaneously if wanted. Exalogic is specifically engineered to just run Java/Weblogic-its not designed to run run OLTP/datawarehouse workloads. Whats most interesting is that SPARC SuperCluster is as fast as Exadata and *also* as fast as Exalogic all using the same engineered system. So much for zero sense.

            1. Anonymous Coward

              refuting SPARC T4 & Java → #

              Nonsense, you did nothing to address the T4 and Exa-xxx contradiction. Oracle says that T4 is highest performing chip for all workloads except "integer math." Well, they have a whole bunch of flagship systems, Exadata, Exalogic, Exalytics, that do not run integer math workloads. All of these systems are based on x86, not T4. Does Oracle just like cutting huge checks to Intel instead of themselves and putting themselves at a competitive disadvantage by not using their own technology, or is T4 not as great as advertised?

              The "Exalogic came out before T4" doesn't hold water. Oracle could have certainly released a V2 of Exalogic with Sparc by this point. There are no plans to release T4 based Exa-xxx machines. Also, Exalytics was announced the same day as T4 WITH x86. They announce they have the best chip in the world and they are not using it in their new system on the same day. How do you explain that?

              1. Kebabbert


                Regarding SPARC T4 and Exalogic. There is no contradiction, it is just you drawing wrong conclusions.

                One of the reasons that T4 is not in the Exa-xxx server line, is because T4 is new. It takes long time before you change an enterprise server hardware configuration.

                Another reason is that T4 does only scale to 4 cpus. Exa-xxx has many more cpus than 4, so you can not use T4 in it.

                The coming T5 will scale to 8 cpus. And future Niagara cpus will scale to 64 cpus, with 16.384 threads.

                Thus there are no contradiction. Ok?

                1. Anonymous Coward
                  Thumb Down

                  @Wunderbar1 → #

                  Your article in which ONE IBM executive said that hypothetically AIX could be replaced by Linux and then was taken back in the same article by the executive actually in charge of AIX, is nearly 10 years old. Have you been saying for last 10 years, while AIX took over the Unix market, that IBM is going to kill AIX? Only to have Power 5, Power 6, Power 7 and AIX 6 and AIX 7 released? I suppose if you just keep at it one of these decades you will be right.

                  It is funny that you are stating the four socket limitation of Sparc, which is otherwise awesome in your book, as the reason Oracle isn't using it for their flagship systems. They could, however, use the same architecture they use with x86 in Exalogic or Supercluster with T4, clustered a bunch of nodes with Infiniband interconnects. In other words, the four socket limitation is no excuse for Oracle not using T4 in Exalogic.

                  As for the "it takes time" excuse, as I mentioned, they were creating Exalytics while they were creating T4 and released them both on the same day (Exalytics does not run "integer math" workloads so T4 should have been the best chip on the planet). They certainly could have used T4 in the initial release of Exalytics. Second, it doesn't take that much time to release a new Exa system. As they are only running one software configuration, with all of their internal software, it is not as though they need to go through the process of ISV testing and certification. They could have easily had Exadata and Exalogic version on Sparc if Sparc could match up favorably with Xeon.

                  As for the T4 benchmarks, they are absurd.

                  "Oracle’s SPECjEnterprise2010 Java T4 benchmark result, which was highlighted, needed four times the number of app nodes, twice the number of cores, almost four times the amount of memory and significantly more storage than the IBM POWER7 result."


        3. Anonymous Coward
          Thumb Down

          Cont. - Wow

          "And its clear that Oracle, is investing heavily in Solaris and SPARC as it’s the only way they will be able to beat IBM and keep Intel in check. "

          Assuming they care about microprocessors, which they don't based upon the Exa-xxx.

          "Why would Oracle publish a 5-year public SPARC & Solaris roadmaps with actual future dates and performance gains if it won't deliver? "

          To prevent the remainder of their Sparc-Slowaris install base from migrating off of the platform before they can migrate them to Exa-xxx... obviously. Hell, Itanium has the longest roadmap in the industry if you want to believe roadmaps. Roadmaps = Marketing. The more unstable and unsecure the chip/platform, the more detail they put out to reassure customers that are migrating.

          "Good thing it didn’t for Power7+ which now appears dead! Is there an AIX8 on any roadmap?"

          Power 7+ is not late. Every three years IBM comes out with a new Power chip, 24 months into the cycle they release the + kicker, which means toward the end of 2012.

        4. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          One more

          "When roadmaps are made public, the company's reputation is on the line. "

          Yes, Oracle would neeever do anything to tarnish their sterling reputation as the most honest and trustworthy company in IT. I mean, when have they ever supported a platform, encouraged all of their customers to get on a platform and then prematurely plugged the plug on a platform for financial reasons (see the article you are commenting on).

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I'm reading through these docs from Oracle's complaint and with every page I got more and more surprised. They keep mentioning content of non-public and most probably very top secret HP documents, known probably only to the board and CXOs. I don't believe HP has ever shared such documents with Oracle, especially that most of them (at least according to what Oracle says) are offensive towards Oracle. So how come they got those documents? I guess they didn't use any hackers, I guess it's just Mr. Hurd who delivered secret HP documents to its new employer. I'm not an expert in US law but here in Europe people go to jail for such a thing. I wonder why nobody yet used this argument. These are not journalists who can say that their sources are secret and nobody can force them to reveal, companies just cannot publicly use documents that they got by breaking the law, there are paragraphs for that!

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Docs in Complaint

      Oracle probably found the docs in the discovery process as part of this trial.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward


      Larry.... Mark your company just sued us for killing Itanium support

      Mark...We need to sue HP back and get the secret documents in the discovery process that show Itanium is dead and HP is paying $1B to keep it going for a few more years.

      Larry....what? A BILLION?

      Mark...yeah...and that gets passed back to Itanium customers by the way of huge service fees

      Larry...ok make sure we get the docs and if we dont make sure your tell the lawyers which words to search for

      Mark...sounds good....HP Intel Itanium Collaboration agreement ....simple search words I am not revealing top secrets. They will pay for kicking me out.

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Oracle Press

    The quotes Oracle pulled out of HP's e-mails re: Itanium are pretty revealing:

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like