Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmat89
Linux works for people who are OK with using obsolete technology: supercomputers of '50s, servers of '70s, primitive X-based GUI apps from '80s, or is content with a walled gardern environment which is completely OS-agnostic (like Android and MacOS, as well as various embedded uses).
|
I'm trying to understand why you're so bitter about Linux. I don't particularly like Windows or Macs but I'm happy for others who use and like them.
So a modern supercomputer is a mainframe from the '50s? Well I couldn't find specs for a '50s mainframe, but I did find the specs for a '70s one.
Here's an article about a
state of the art, 1970s mainframe, an IBM System/370 Model 145...
Quote:
IBM maintains an awesome archive of its history, collecting various documents and media it's released since being founded in 1911.
We were especially intrigued by this 1970 press release singing the praises of System/370 Model 145, a mainframe computer that was state of the art at the time of its inception. It had 500 KB of RAM, 233 megabytes of hard disk space, and ran at 2.5 MHz. It took up an entire room.
Nowadays, this computer would be able to store a small collection of photos and (slowly) access them. Not much else! You could double its 32,000 characters of control storage to 64,000 by "using a portion of main memory, if needed, to accommodate optionally available functions."
Adjusted for inflation, this computer would cost you between $4.3 million and $10.8 million in today's dollars, depending on the options you selected.
|
https://www.businessinsider.com/ibm-...s-today-2014-5
So you can see why it's hard to take what you say about Linux seriously. You undercut your own credibility by comparing '50s mainframes with modern supercomputers.
In comparison here are the specs for a modern supercomputer (not the same as mainframe)...
Quote:
According to a quote with several origins, science advances on the shoulders of giants. In our time, these words have taken on a special meaning thanks to a new class of giants—supercomputers—which nowadays are pushing the boundaries of science to levels that the human intellect would be incapable of reaching on its own.
In a few decades, the strength of these giants has multiplied dramatically: in 1985 the world’s most powerful supercomputer, Cray-2, could process 1.9 billion floating point operations per second (FLOPS), or 1.9 gigaflops, the parameter used to measure the power of these machines. By comparison, a current PlayStation 4 game console reaches 1.84 teraflops, almost a thousand times more. Today, there are at least 500 supercomputers in the world that can exceed a petaflop, or one billion flops, according to the TOP500 list drawn up by experts from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and the universities of Mannheim (Germany) and Tennessee (USA). ...
1. Summit, Oak Ridge National Laboratory (USA)
The world’s most powerful supercomputer today is Summit, built by IBM for the U.S. Department of Energy’s Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee. It occupies the equivalent of two basketball courts and achieves an impressive 148.6 petaflops thanks to its 2.41 million cores.
|
https://www.bbvaopenmind.com/en/tech...ntific-giants/
All 500 of the top supercomputers run on Linux. A few years ago there were still a few Windows, Mac and UNIX supercomputers in that mix. There's a reason for that, Linux scales better than the other OS's. That's also why Microsoft (themselves) are moving to Linux servers in their cloud.
The reason there aren't a lot of big, commercial applications for Linux is that the market isn't there. It has nothing to do with the capabilities of the Linux operating system.
I don't care why you seem to hate Linux, but at least try to stay grounded in reality when write about it.