By: rwessel (robertwessel.delete@this.yahoo.com), July 1, 2013 3:39 pm
Room: Moderated Discussions
Michael S (already5chosen.delete@this.yahoo.com) on July 1, 2013 8:57 am wrote:
> anon (anon.delete@this.anon.com) on July 1, 2013 1:45 am wrote:
> >
> > The ironic part of this is that Linus believes in the market when it suits his worldview
> > ("market decided x86 is better than xyz despite some bickering from people in ivory towers,
> > therefore your technical arguments are simply masturbation"). On the other hand, he is quite
> > sure that the market is wrong to be driving floating point performance in this way.
> >
>
> IMHO, not less ironic is that the rant came from designer of the OS that after
> 20 years of intensive development succeeded to become the industry standard in
> one and only one major field of computing - massively-parallel FP calculations.
I'm quite sure that Linux burns an order of magnitude more cycles running web servers and phones than supporting "massively-parallel FP calculations".
> anon (anon.delete@this.anon.com) on July 1, 2013 1:45 am wrote:
> >
> > The ironic part of this is that Linus believes in the market when it suits his worldview
> > ("market decided x86 is better than xyz despite some bickering from people in ivory towers,
> > therefore your technical arguments are simply masturbation"). On the other hand, he is quite
> > sure that the market is wrong to be driving floating point performance in this way.
> >
>
> IMHO, not less ironic is that the rant came from designer of the OS that after
> 20 years of intensive development succeeded to become the industry standard in
> one and only one major field of computing - massively-parallel FP calculations.
I'm quite sure that Linux burns an order of magnitude more cycles running web servers and phones than supporting "massively-parallel FP calculations".