Linus Torvalds (torvalds@linux-foundation.org) on 2/7/09 wrote:
---------------------------
>[ Btw - whether you're Paul or not, let me just say it's
>fun arguing with you. Arguing with Paul was always fun
>and often educational - which is the point. So either
>welcome back, or just welcome ;^]
>
>someone (someone@somewhere.com) on 2/6/09 wrote:

>>Here's gratuitously piling on:
>
>Not gratuitous - much appreciated, and a much stronger
>argument:
>
>>1) IPF QPI and Xeon QPI don't use the same coherency
>>protocol (Xeon uses a simplified snoopy scheme suitable
>>for 2s/4s, IPF uses a more complex scalable distributed
>>directory system). Where do you think most of the "high
>>level" complexity is.
>
>If true (and I have no real reason to doubt it), that's
>just crazy, but I guess it meshes well with the whole
>insane notion of Intel just traditionally not letting x86
>grow up. I had really thought they got over that.
>
>And if so, then yes, it does sound like IPF actually got
>some real design resources put on it, rather than the
>usual third-rate hacks (and I say "third-rate hacks" not
>because I know any of them, but just from looking at the
>sorry history of the dang thing).

So is this a begrudging admission from our stalwart IPF basher that in the last 5 years of continual negativity, that it seems like Intel actually might be close to finishing manouvering IPF to exactly where it seems to have been planning for a long time? (RISC replacement)

Whether it is due to technical issues or manipulation of markets, it really seems to be happening (not that you can ever really take the market out of the equation -- one may not like ia64 very much, but I can tell you without a doubt based on pure technical reasons we would not be using x86 today either). And more impressive to me is that it is happening with such an obsolete process and platform. Anybody who still dismisses IPF's chances as it gains process parity with x86 has their head in the sand IMO.