Re: Sorry, but...

From: Noons <>
Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2012 17:54:02 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <>

On Jan 11, 12:24 am, onedbguru <> wrote:

> Maybe so, but without DEC and Rdb, most of the technology used in RAC,
> and RDBMS itself would still be floundering as it did prior to the Rdb
> purchase which is why Larry bought it in the first place - and then
> licensed the cluster technology out of Tru64 from HP. I won't "bore"

Ah yes: that's why 6.2 was parallel server - and working! - long before Oracle bought Rdb....
Then they re-badged it "RAC"...

> but, you can start with ethernet(collaborative effort) and 64bit
> computing.  DEC had marketing problems which showed in their decision-

Actually, 64-bit computing was first done by Control Data, then by Sperry Univac and only much, much later, by DEC... Not deriding the value of DEC's implementation!

A small list of other "bleeding edge" DEC technologies that really were not:
. time-sharing scheduling: Honeywell Bull, Multics and Sperry's OS1100.
. true multi-processing: Sperry OS1100, with the 1110 hardware series (back in the 60s!!!).

.  multi-tasking: IBM OS1 (later VS1)
.  virtualization: IBM VM (later OS/VM)
.  NUMA style multi-processor architecture: Control Data Cyber series.

and so on.

I'm fortunate enough to have cut my teeth in computing with most of the Sperry and IBM stuff above.
Then Unix started here in Australia, back in 1984. And I was forever sold!...

> making processes - but had really great engineering - hardware and
> software - down to their chip design and manufacturing.

They did. The Alpha architecture, although not original, was a breakthrough  in performance. And VMS to this day remains one of the best OSs I've ever worked with. Not the best, but close. Received on Sun Jan 15 2012 - 19:54:02 CST

Original text of this message