Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Intel Ivy Bridge Linux Virtualization Performance

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    13,396

    Default Intel Ivy Bridge Linux Virtualization Performance

    Phoronix: Intel Ivy Bridge Linux Virtualization Performance

    As the latest Intel Ivy Bridge numbers to push out, here is a look at the Linux virtualization performance with the Core i7 3770K processor when comparing its raw/bare-metal performance to Linux KVM (Kernel-based Virtual Machine) virtualization and Oracle VM VirtualBox under Ubuntu 12.04 LTS.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=17403

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Seattle, WA, USA
    Posts
    82

    Default

    VMware virtualization was left out of the mix this time due to licensing reasons
    What are the licensing reasons?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    492

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by steveriley View Post
    What are the licensing reasons?
    There you go: http://www.run-virtual.com/?p=123

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Seattle, WA, USA
    Posts
    82

    Default

    Harumph. I should have suspected this.

    But I wonder...are these clauses really enforceable? I mean, consider the following statements:

    1. "I { downloaded | purchased } Foo."
    2. "I installed Foo."
    3. "I executed Foo and looked at the configuration options."
    4. "I performed a unit of work with Foo."
    5. "I measured and reported the time it took for Foo to do a thing."

    Statement #5 is just as much an expression of free speech as statements #1..#4. How can a court hold that #1..#4 are allowed but #5 is prohibited? Can shrink-wrap "agreements" really override the Constitution?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    2,904

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by steveriley View Post
    Harumph. I should have suspected this.

    But I wonder...are these clauses really enforceable? I mean, consider the following statements:

    1. "I { downloaded | purchased } Foo."
    2. "I installed Foo."
    3. "I executed Foo and looked at the configuration options."
    4. "I performed a unit of work with Foo."
    5. "I measured and reported the time it took for Foo to do a thing."

    Statement #5 is just as much an expression of free speech as statements #1..#4. How can a court hold that #1..#4 are allowed but #5 is prohibited? Can shrink-wrap "agreements" really override the Constitution?
    Unless you're willing to spend $50,000 on a lawyer, it doesn't really matter.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,931

    Default Inferior

    VMware forbidding benchmarks must be due to inferior performance when compared against the competition.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    620

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by steveriley View Post
    Harumph. I should have suspected this.

    But I wonder...are these clauses really enforceable? I mean, consider the following statements:

    1. "I { downloaded | purchased } Foo."
    2. "I installed Foo."
    3. "I executed Foo and looked at the configuration options."
    4. "I performed a unit of work with Foo."
    5. "I measured and reported the time it took for Foo to do a thing."

    Statement #5 is just as much an expression of free speech as statements #1..#4. How can a court hold that #1..#4 are allowed but #5 is prohibited? Can shrink-wrap "agreements" really override the Constitution?
    IANAL however..

    First off you do realize NDAs have been legally enforced? right? and that that EULA basically has an NDA clause to it...

    Now what may be possible is the fact that EULAs have had a mixture of results in court sometimes they're enforced, sometimes they're not, and if an EULA tells you to do anything Illegal, such as one early Microsoft EULA, it's void..

    Also... The constitution at this point is rather meaningless, it was never really followed after the first few presidents, and then FDR went and completely violated it, and then his successor Truman never had it reinstated which means that the constitution isn't actually in effect, they're just acting like it is. And of course we've had things just continue building up with stuff like the Patriot Act and the NDAA only actually legalizing what they were already doing.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    2,904

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Luke_Wolf View Post
    IANAL however..

    First off you do realize NDAs have been legally enforced? right? and that that EULA basically has an NDA clause to it...

    Now what may be possible is the fact that EULAs have had a mixture of results in court sometimes they're enforced, sometimes they're not, and if an EULA tells you to do anything Illegal, such as one early Microsoft EULA, it's void..

    Also... The constitution at this point is rather meaningless, it was never really followed after the first few presidents, and then FDR went and completely violated it, and then his successor Truman never had it reinstated which means that the constitution isn't actually in effect, they're just acting like it is. And of course we've had things just continue building up with stuff like the Patriot Act and the NDAA only actually legalizing what they were already doing.
    John Adams was President #2 after being George Washington's VP, and helped pass the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. Anyone who thinks politicians haven't been bypassing the laws of the country since it's very founding is living under a rock.

    Back on topic:
    Anything relating to legal matters has no basis in common sense or what you can write down on these forums. It just doesn't. It's whatever you can convince a judge to rule, and the better you are at pulling out obscure legal tricks the more likely you are to succeed.

    I have my strong doubts about whether this non-disclosure rule would really be upheld by the courts, but I think most lawyers would say it's a grey area that could go either way. I could certainly see it going all the way up to the Supreme Court before it's finally settled, which means anyone who wants to fight it better be prepared for a long and expensive battle. In the real world, that means no one cares enough to go against it - except for individuals/groups who are too small to be noticed, and don't worry about it since they aren't important enough to sue.

    Of course, that's just US law. In other jurisdictions, judges could come to completely different results.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •