From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264517AbTIDCf7 (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Sep 2003 22:35:59 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264525AbTIDCf6 (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Sep 2003 22:35:58 -0400 Received: from smtp.bitmover.com ([192.132.92.12]:4227 "EHLO smtp.bitmover.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264517AbTIDCft (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Sep 2003 22:35:49 -0400 Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2003 19:34:46 -0700 From: Larry McVoy To: "Martin J. Bligh" Cc: Larry McVoy , "Brown, Len" , Giuliano Pochini , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Scaling noise Message-ID: <20030904023446.GG5227@work.bitmover.com> Mail-Followup-To: Larry McVoy , "Martin J. Bligh" , Larry McVoy , "Brown, Len" , Giuliano Pochini , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20030903173213.GC5769@work.bitmover.com> <89360000.1062613076@flay> <20030904003633.GA5227@work.bitmover.com> <6130000.1062642088@[10.10.2.4]> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <6130000.1062642088@[10.10.2.4]> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam (whitelisted), SpamAssassin (score=0.5, required 7, AWL, DATE_IN_PAST_06_12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Sep 03, 2003 at 07:21:29PM -0700, Martin J. Bligh wrote: > --Larry McVoy wrote (on Wednesday, September 03, 2003 17:36:33 -0700): > > They have to be, CPUs are fast enough > > to handle most problems, clustering has worked for lots of big companies > > like Google, Amazon, Yahoo, and the HPC market has been flat for years. > > So where's the growth? Nowhere I can see. If I'm not seeing it, show > > me the data. I may be a pain in the ass but I'll change my mind instantly > > when you show me data that says something different than what I believe. > > So far, all I've seen is people having fun proving that their ego is > > bigger than the next guys, no real data. Come on, you'd love nothing > > better than to prove me wrong. Do it. Or admit that you can't. > > Not quite sure why the onus is on the rest of us to disprove your pet > theory, rather than you to prove it. Maybe because history has shown over and over again that your pet theory doesn't work. Mine might be wrong but it hasn't been proven wrong. Yours has. Multiple times. -- --- Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm