Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #331566 > unrolled thread
| Started by | 7 <email_at_www_at_enemygadgets_dot_com@enemygadgets.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-11-07 20:57 +0000 |
| Last post | 2015-11-09 06:20 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 119 — 24 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy
Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine 7 <email_at_www_at_enemygadgets_dot_com@enemygadgets.com> - 2015-11-07 20:57 +0000
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-11-07 21:03 +0000
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine 7 <email_at_www_at_enemygadgets_dot_com@enemygadgets.com> - 2015-11-07 21:19 +0000
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine "Cola Zealot" <Cola_Zealot@fuckoff.com> - 2015-12-22 22:20 +0100
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-07 16:48 -0500
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine Bob Loblaw <BL@LinuxProfessionals.com> - 2015-11-07 18:43 -0500
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-11-07 18:32 -0700
Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine 7 <email_at_www_at_enemygadgets_dot_com@enemygadgets.com> - 2015-11-08 11:02 +0000
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine Saint George <stgeorge@england.eng> - 2015-11-08 14:57 +0000
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine saneearth <sane@theearth.com> - 2015-11-08 15:55 +0000
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine burfordTjustice <burfordTjustice@hub.hob> - 2015-11-08 13:03 -0500
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine totsob <sane@theearth.com> - 2015-11-10 05:30 -0600
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine burfordTjustice <burfordTjustice@hub.hob> - 2015-11-10 08:22 -0500
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-11-09 07:35 -0600
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine Saint George <stgeorge@england.eng> - 2015-11-09 14:54 +0000
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-11-09 10:21 -0500
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-11-09 13:10 -0700
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-11-09 09:28 -0600
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-11-09 10:34 -0500
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine Saint George <stgeorge@england.eng> - 2015-11-09 17:14 +0000
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-11-09 14:53 -0600
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-09 15:07 -0700
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-11-09 23:21 +0100
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-11-09 22:26 +0000
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-09 15:32 -0700
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-11-09 23:36 +0100
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-11-09 18:10 -0700
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-11-10 10:15 +0100
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-11-10 14:01 -0700
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-11-09 20:43 -0600
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-11-10 10:14 +0100
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-11-10 10:29 -0600
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-11-10 14:03 -0700
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-11-10 14:02 -0700
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-11-10 09:04 -0500
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-11-10 15:33 +0100
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-11-10 08:49 -0600
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-11-10 15:02 +0000
Quiet, Turdv. GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-11-10 14:05 -0700
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-11-11 09:34 -0500
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-11-10 14:04 -0700
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-11-10 02:02 +0100
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-11-09 18:08 -0700
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-09 15:31 -0700
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-11-10 09:02 -0500
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-11-10 14:10 +0000
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-10 10:42 -0500
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-11-10 14:06 -0700
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-09 17:11 -0500
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-11-09 18:06 -0700
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-11-09 13:12 -0700
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-11-09 21:24 +0100
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-11-09 15:33 -0500
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine Takuya Saitoh <taka0038@gmail.com> - 2015-11-09 16:57 -0800
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-09 16:51 -0500
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-11-09 17:02 -0500
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-11-09 23:12 +0100
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-09 17:33 -0500
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-11-09 17:45 -0500
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-11-09 18:15 -0700
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-11-09 18:13 -0700
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine Takuya Saitoh <taka0038@gmail.com> - 2015-11-09 16:54 -0800
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-11-09 18:20 -0700
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine Takuya Saitoh <taka0038@gmail.com> - 2015-11-09 21:20 -0800
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-11-10 14:11 -0700
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-11-09 14:51 -0600
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-11-09 21:24 +0000
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine Saint George <stgeorge@england.eng> - 2015-11-09 21:37 +0000
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-11-09 16:06 -0600
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-09 17:27 -0500
Yeah, we know you are an Idiot, Turdv. So what else is new? GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-11-09 18:23 -0700
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-11-09 16:05 -0600
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2015-11-09 23:41 +0000
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-09 16:49 -0700
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-11-09 18:23 -0700
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-11-09 18:22 -0700
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-09 15:08 -0700
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine Saint George <stgeorge@england.eng> - 2015-11-09 22:26 +0000
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-11-09 22:27 +0000
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-09 15:30 -0700
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-11-09 16:36 -0600
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2015-11-10 00:12 +0000
You are getting really lame and senile JED. GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-11-09 18:25 -0700
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2015-11-10 08:49 +0000
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-11-10 07:34 -0600
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2015-11-10 13:59 +0000
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-11-10 15:30 +0100
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2015-11-10 15:37 +0000
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-10 07:51 -0800
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-11-10 10:36 -0600
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-11-10 17:19 +0000
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-11-10 14:14 -0700
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-11-10 14:12 -0700
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2015-11-10 22:24 +0000
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-11-10 17:09 -0700
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-09 10:17 -0500
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-08 11:08 -0500
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-08 11:18 -0500
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-11-08 15:49 -0700
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2015-11-10 08:24 +0000
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-11-10 14:15 -0700
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-08 11:04 -0500
Trading software developed for Windoze only, no Linux support at all! Takuya Saitoh <taka0038@gmail.com> - 2015-11-08 22:40 -0800
Re: Trading software developed for Windoze only, no Linux support at all! Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-11-09 07:49 +0100
Re: Trading software developed for Windoze only, no Linux support at all! Takuya Saitoh <taka0038@gmail.com> - 2015-11-09 00:18 -0800
Re: Trading software developed for Windoze only, no Linux support at all! Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-11-09 06:20 -0500
Re: Trading software developed for Windoze only, no Linux support at all! Takuya Saitoh <taka0038@gmail.com> - 2015-11-09 05:30 -0800
Re: Trading software developed for Windoze only, no Linux support at all! Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-09 08:36 -0500
Re: Trading software developed for Windoze only, no Linux support at all! Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-11-09 10:19 -0500
Re: Trading software developed for Windoze only, no Linux support at all! William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2015-11-09 17:35 +0000
And you can't even afford to go on the stock market, luser. GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-11-09 13:15 -0700
And now, show the link. GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-11-09 13:14 -0700
Re: Trading software developed for Windoze only, no Linux support at all! Takuya Saitoh <taka0038@gmail.com> - 2015-11-09 17:15 -0800
Re: Trading software developed for Windoze only, no Linux support at all! Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-11-10 06:01 -0500
Re: Trading software developed for Windoze only, no Linux support at all! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-11-10 09:01 -0500
Re: Trading software developed for Windoze only, no Linux support at all! "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-11-10 09:57 -0500
Re: Trading software developed for Windoze only, no Linux support at all! GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-11-10 14:17 -0700
So name one. GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-11-09 13:14 -0700
Re: Trading software developed for Windoze only, no Linux support at all! Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-11-09 06:20 -0500
Page 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 Next page →
| From | JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-09 14:53 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <slrnn421tf.oua.jedi@nomad.mishnet> |
| In reply to | #331902 |
On 2015-11-09, Saint George <stgeorge@england.eng> wrote: > On 09/11/2015 03:28 pm, chrisv wrote: >> Saint George wrote: >> >>> chrisv wrote: >>>> >>>> Saint George wrote: >>>>> >>>>> No it didn't, Windows and OS X went 64 bit at the same time x86_64 CPUs >>>>> became available... >>>>> >>>>> Nothing special about Linux, it just a rip-off of UNIX®... >>>> >>>> Idiot. >>> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix#/media/File:Unix_history-simple.svg >>> >>> Linux, MacOS X, x.BSD, Solaris - all UNIX like clones... >> >> I would not object to someone merely stating that Linux is a "UNIX >> like clone", idiot. >> > What's the matter, truth hurts? What truth? That Linux shares many of the key qualities of Unix? You say that like it's a BAD thing. Forget about 64 CPU machines. Linux runs 1024 CPU machines.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-09 15:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D2666748.6350D%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #331982 |
On 11/9/15, 1:53 PM, in article slrnn421tf.oua.jedi@nomad.mishnet, "JEDIDIAH" <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote: > On 2015-11-09, Saint George <stgeorge@england.eng> wrote: >> On 09/11/2015 03:28 pm, chrisv wrote: >>> Saint George wrote: >>> >>>> chrisv wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Saint George wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> No it didn't, Windows and OS X went 64 bit at the same time x86_64 CPUs >>>>>> became available... >>>>>> >>>>>> Nothing special about Linux, it just a rip-off of UNIX®... >>>>> >>>>> Idiot. >>>> >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix#/media/File:Unix_history-simple.svg >>>> >>>> Linux, MacOS X, x.BSD, Solaris - all UNIX like clones... >>> >>> I would not object to someone merely stating that Linux is a "UNIX >>> like clone", idiot. >>> >> What's the matter, truth hurts? > > What truth? That Linux shares many of the key qualities of Unix? > > You say that like it's a BAD thing. > > Forget about 64 CPU machines. Linux runs 1024 CPU machines. Linux is Unix-like. Not a UNIX. -- * OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI> * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-09 23:21 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n1r65v$a50$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #332016 |
Snit wrote: > On 11/9/15, 1:53 PM, in article slrnn421tf.oua.jedi@nomad.mishnet, > "JEDIDIAH" <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote: > >> On 2015-11-09, Saint George <stgeorge@england.eng> wrote: >>> On 09/11/2015 03:28 pm, chrisv wrote: >>>> Saint George wrote: >>>> >>>>> chrisv wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Saint George wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No it didn't, Windows and OS X went 64 bit at the same time x86_64 >>>>>>> CPUs became available... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Nothing special about Linux, it just a rip-off of UNIX®... >>>>>> >>>>>> Idiot. >>>>> >>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix#/media/File:Unix_history-simple.svg >>>>> >>>>> Linux, MacOS X, x.BSD, Solaris - all UNIX like clones... >>>> >>>> I would not object to someone merely stating that Linux is a "UNIX >>>> like clone", idiot. >>>> >>> What's the matter, truth hurts? >> >> What truth? That Linux shares many of the key qualities of Unix? >> >> You say that like it's a BAD thing. >> >> Forget about 64 CPU machines. Linux runs 1024 CPU machines. > > Linux is Unix-like. Not a UNIX. > > Is that the reason why it can run the supercomputers and apple can not? Is that the reason the internet is largely based on linux, and OSX does not even need to apply? Is that the reason no sane person would use OSX as company server platform, but does with linux? OSX can't even try to run the hardware easily handled by linux. It is only found on overpriced underpowered machines mainly used by posers who want to impress idiots with their affinity to spend money needless for stuff they have no use of
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-09 22:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <dackslFc9qU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #332029 |
On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 23:21:58 +0100, Peter Köhlmann wrote: > Snit wrote: > >> On 11/9/15, 1:53 PM, in article slrnn421tf.oua.jedi@nomad.mishnet, >> "JEDIDIAH" <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote: >> >>> On 2015-11-09, Saint George <stgeorge@england.eng> wrote: >>>> On 09/11/2015 03:28 pm, chrisv wrote: >>>>> Saint George wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> chrisv wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Saint George wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No it didn't, Windows and OS X went 64 bit at the same time >>>>>>>> x86_64 CPUs became available... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Nothing special about Linux, it just a rip-off of UNIX®... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Idiot. >>>>>> >>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix#/media/File:Unix_history- simple.svg >>>>>> >>>>>> Linux, MacOS X, x.BSD, Solaris - all UNIX like clones... >>>>> >>>>> I would not object to someone merely stating that Linux is a "UNIX >>>>> like clone", idiot. >>>>> >>>> What's the matter, truth hurts? >>> >>> What truth? That Linux shares many of the key qualities of Unix? >>> >>> You say that like it's a BAD thing. >>> >>> Forget about 64 CPU machines. Linux runs 1024 CPU machines. >> >> Linux is Unix-like. Not a UNIX. >> >> > Is that the reason why it can run the supercomputers and apple can not? One of your dumbest questions to date. The OS could if Apple either built a super computer or licensed right to one that wanted to. > Is that the reason the internet is largely based on linux, and OSX does > not even need to apply? Is that the reason no sane person would use OSX > as company server platform, but does with linux? > Some more stupid questions. Linux gets the nod for internet servicing because it is free and works well in that role. Other OS's could do just was well but they aren't free for the most part. > OSX can't even try to run the hardware easily handled by linux. It is > only found on overpriced underpowered machines mainly used by posers who > want to impress idiots with their affinity to spend money needless for > stuff they have no use of Right, OSX isn't used on crap boxes from your dumpster. << newsgroups snipped >> -- Lloyd
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-09 15:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D2666D07.6353A%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #332031 |
On 11/9/15, 3:26 PM, in article dackslFc9qU1@mid.individual.net, "Lloyd Parsons" <lloydp211@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 23:21:58 +0100, Peter Köhlmann wrote: ... >>> >>> Linux is Unix-like. Not a UNIX. >>> >>> >> Is that the reason why it can run the supercomputers and apple can not? > > One of your dumbest questions to date. Not even close. :) -- * OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI> * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-09 23:36 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n1r71q$dgn$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #332031 |
Lloyd Parsons wrote: > On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 23:21:58 +0100, Peter Köhlmann wrote: > >> Snit wrote: >> >>> On 11/9/15, 1:53 PM, in article slrnn421tf.oua.jedi@nomad.mishnet, >>> "JEDIDIAH" <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote: >>> >>>> On 2015-11-09, Saint George <stgeorge@england.eng> wrote: >>>>> On 09/11/2015 03:28 pm, chrisv wrote: >>>>>> Saint George wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> chrisv wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Saint George wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No it didn't, Windows and OS X went 64 bit at the same time >>>>>>>>> x86_64 CPUs became available... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Nothing special about Linux, it just a rip-off of UNIX®... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Idiot. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix#/media/File:Unix_history-> simple.svg >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Linux, MacOS X, x.BSD, Solaris - all UNIX like clones... >>>>>> >>>>>> I would not object to someone merely stating that Linux is a "UNIX >>>>>> like clone", idiot. >>>>>> >>>>> What's the matter, truth hurts? >>>> >>>> What truth? That Linux shares many of the key qualities of Unix? >>>> >>>> You say that like it's a BAD thing. >>>> >>>> Forget about 64 CPU machines. Linux runs 1024 CPU machines. >>> >>> Linux is Unix-like. Not a UNIX. >>> >>> >> Is that the reason why it can run the supercomputers and apple can not? > > One of your dumbest questions to date. The OS could if Apple either > built a super computer or licensed right to one that wanted to. No, the OS can *not* OSX has no NUMA capability. Its control of processors is a hoot compared to linux Look up the specs for the single entry which ever made its way into the top-500 list. The hardware specs of the supported machine make it a toy compared to the linux based computers, even of that time frame That is also the reason why windows has no chance of ever making it again into the top-500 list. Windows as well as OSX have no means to control large numbers of processors
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-09 18:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <M72dnV6XavJz3tzLnZ2dnUU7-K2dnZ2d@bresnan.com> |
| In reply to | #332045 |
On 11/09/15 15:36, Peter Köhlmann wrote: > Lloyd Parsons wrote: > >> On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 23:21:58 +0100, Peter Köhlmann wrote: >> >>> Snit wrote: >>> >>>> On 11/9/15, 1:53 PM, in article slrnn421tf.oua.jedi@nomad.mishnet, >>>> "JEDIDIAH"<jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 2015-11-09, Saint George<stgeorge@england.eng> wrote: >>>>>> On 09/11/2015 03:28 pm, chrisv wrote: >>>>>>> Saint George wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> chrisv wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Saint George wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> No it didn't, Windows and OS X went 64 bit at the same time >>>>>>>>>> x86_64 CPUs became available... >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Nothing special about Linux, it just a rip-off of UNIX®... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Idiot. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix#/media/File:Unix_history-> simple.svg >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Linux, MacOS X, x.BSD, Solaris - all UNIX like clones... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I would not object to someone merely stating that Linux is a "UNIX >>>>>>> like clone", idiot. >>>>>>> >>>>>> What's the matter, truth hurts? >>>>> >>>>> What truth? That Linux shares many of the key qualities of Unix? >>>>> >>>>> You say that like it's a BAD thing. >>>>> >>>>> Forget about 64 CPU machines. Linux runs 1024 CPU machines. >>>> >>>> Linux is Unix-like. Not a UNIX. >>>> >>>> >>> Is that the reason why it can run the supercomputers and apple can not? >> >> One of your dumbest questions to date. The OS could if Apple either >> built a super computer or licensed right to one that wanted to. > > No, the OS can *not* > OSX has no NUMA capability. Its control of processors is a hoot compared to > linux > Oh baloney. If a computer vendor wanted to, they could pay Apple for the source code. The reason they don't is that linux is there for the grabbing, so they save money. Later, after the machine works, the vendor will have to make changes to the source code to get it to do the really heavy lifting. > Look up the specs for the single entry which ever made its way into the > top-500 list. > The hardware specs of the supported machine make it a toy compared to the > linux based computers, even of that time frame > > That is also the reason why windows has no chance of ever making it again > into the top-500 list. Windows as well as OSX have no means to control large > numbers of processors Guffaw!!! -- My problem is that I don't have enough middle fingers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-10 10:15 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n1scfv$mak$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #332106 |
GreyCloud wrote: > On 11/09/15 15:36, Peter Köhlmann wrote: >> Lloyd Parsons wrote: >> >>> On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 23:21:58 +0100, Peter Köhlmann wrote: >>> >>>> Snit wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 11/9/15, 1:53 PM, in article slrnn421tf.oua.jedi@nomad.mishnet, >>>>> "JEDIDIAH"<jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 2015-11-09, Saint George<stgeorge@england.eng> wrote: >>>>>>> On 09/11/2015 03:28 pm, chrisv wrote: >>>>>>>> Saint George wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> chrisv wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Saint George wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> No it didn't, Windows and OS X went 64 bit at the same time >>>>>>>>>>> x86_64 CPUs became available... >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Nothing special about Linux, it just a rip-off of UNIX®... >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Idiot. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix#/media/File:Unix_history-> >>>>>>>>> simple.svg >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Linux, MacOS X, x.BSD, Solaris - all UNIX like clones... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I would not object to someone merely stating that Linux is a "UNIX >>>>>>>> like clone", idiot. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> What's the matter, truth hurts? >>>>>> >>>>>> What truth? That Linux shares many of the key qualities of Unix? >>>>>> >>>>>> You say that like it's a BAD thing. >>>>>> >>>>>> Forget about 64 CPU machines. Linux runs 1024 CPU machines. >>>>> >>>>> Linux is Unix-like. Not a UNIX. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Is that the reason why it can run the supercomputers and apple can not? >>> >>> One of your dumbest questions to date. The OS could if Apple either >>> built a super computer or licensed right to one that wanted to. >> >> No, the OS can *not* >> OSX has no NUMA capability. Its control of processors is a hoot compared >> to linux >> > > Oh baloney. > If a computer vendor wanted to, they could pay Apple for the source > code. The reason they don't is that linux is there for the grabbing, so > they save money. > Later, after the machine works, the vendor will have to make changes to > the source code to get it to do the really heavy lifting. NUMA isn't at all just about source code. But apple has absolutely no NUMA source in its code base
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-10 14:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3N2dnQsnU46Bxt_LnZ2dnUU7-c-dnZ2d@bresnan.com> |
| In reply to | #332205 |
On 11/10/15 02:15, Peter Köhlmann wrote: > GreyCloud wrote: > >> On 11/09/15 15:36, Peter Köhlmann wrote: >>> Lloyd Parsons wrote: >>> >>>> On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 23:21:58 +0100, Peter Köhlmann wrote: >>>> >>>>> Snit wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 11/9/15, 1:53 PM, in article slrnn421tf.oua.jedi@nomad.mishnet, >>>>>> "JEDIDIAH"<jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 2015-11-09, Saint George<stgeorge@england.eng> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 09/11/2015 03:28 pm, chrisv wrote: >>>>>>>>> Saint George wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> chrisv wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Saint George wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> No it didn't, Windows and OS X went 64 bit at the same time >>>>>>>>>>>> x86_64 CPUs became available... >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Nothing special about Linux, it just a rip-off of UNIX®... >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Idiot. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix#/media/File:Unix_history-> >>>>>>>>>> simple.svg >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Linux, MacOS X, x.BSD, Solaris - all UNIX like clones... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I would not object to someone merely stating that Linux is a "UNIX >>>>>>>>> like clone", idiot. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What's the matter, truth hurts? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What truth? That Linux shares many of the key qualities of Unix? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You say that like it's a BAD thing. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Forget about 64 CPU machines. Linux runs 1024 CPU machines. >>>>>> >>>>>> Linux is Unix-like. Not a UNIX. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Is that the reason why it can run the supercomputers and apple can not? >>>> >>>> One of your dumbest questions to date. The OS could if Apple either >>>> built a super computer or licensed right to one that wanted to. >>> >>> No, the OS can *not* >>> OSX has no NUMA capability. Its control of processors is a hoot compared >>> to linux >>> >> >> Oh baloney. >> If a computer vendor wanted to, they could pay Apple for the source >> code. The reason they don't is that linux is there for the grabbing, so >> they save money. >> Later, after the machine works, the vendor will have to make changes to >> the source code to get it to do the really heavy lifting. > > NUMA isn't at all just about source code. But apple has absolutely no NUMA > source in its code base Does it matter? People that buy into apple products could care less and never even heard of NUMA. -- My problem is that I don't have enough middle fingers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-09 20:43 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <slrnn42mf5.a86.jedi@nomad.mishnet> |
| In reply to | #332045 |
On 2015-11-09, Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote: > Lloyd Parsons wrote: > >> On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 23:21:58 +0100, Peter Köhlmann wrote: >> >>> Snit wrote: >>> >>>> On 11/9/15, 1:53 PM, in article slrnn421tf.oua.jedi@nomad.mishnet, >>>> "JEDIDIAH" <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 2015-11-09, Saint George <stgeorge@england.eng> wrote: >>>>>> On 09/11/2015 03:28 pm, chrisv wrote: >>>>>>> Saint George wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> chrisv wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Saint George wrote: [deletia] >> One of your dumbest questions to date. The OS could if Apple either >> built a super computer or licensed right to one that wanted to. > > No, the OS can *not* > OSX has no NUMA capability. Its control of processors is a hoot compared to > linux While this is certainly relevant for 64-CPU machines, I don't think it has anything to do with the machines on the top-500 supercomputers list. > > Look up the specs for the single entry which ever made its way into the > top-500 list. > The hardware specs of the supported machine make it a toy compared to the > linux based computers, even of that time frame > > That is also the reason why windows has no chance of ever making it again > into the top-500 list. Windows as well as OSX have no means to control large > numbers of processors ??? I thought "supercomputers" anymore were just clusters of tiny machines.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-10 10:14 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n1scde$mak$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #332169 |
JEDIDIAH wrote: > On 2015-11-09, Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote: >> Lloyd Parsons wrote: >> >>> On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 23:21:58 +0100, Peter Köhlmann wrote: >>> >>>> Snit wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 11/9/15, 1:53 PM, in article slrnn421tf.oua.jedi@nomad.mishnet, >>>>> "JEDIDIAH" <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 2015-11-09, Saint George <stgeorge@england.eng> wrote: >>>>>>> On 09/11/2015 03:28 pm, chrisv wrote: >>>>>>>> Saint George wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> chrisv wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Saint George wrote: > > [deletia] > >>> One of your dumbest questions to date. The OS could if Apple either >>> built a super computer or licensed right to one that wanted to. >> >> No, the OS can *not* >> OSX has no NUMA capability. Its control of processors is a hoot compared >> to linux > > While this is certainly relevant for 64-CPU machines, I don't think it > has anything to do with the machines on the top-500 supercomputers list. > >> >> Look up the specs for the single entry which ever made its way into the >> top-500 list. >> The hardware specs of the supported machine make it a toy compared to the >> linux based computers, even of that time frame >> >> That is also the reason why windows has no chance of ever making it again >> into the top-500 list. Windows as well as OSX have no means to control >> large numbers of processors > > ??? > > I thought "supercomputers" anymore were just clusters of tiny machines. Most of them have thousands of CPUs
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-10 10:29 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <slrnn446qt.eh.jedi@nomad.mishnet> |
| In reply to | #332204 |
On 2015-11-10, Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote: > JEDIDIAH wrote: > >> On 2015-11-09, Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote: >>> Lloyd Parsons wrote: >>> >>>> On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 23:21:58 +0100, Peter Köhlmann wrote: >>>> >>>>> Snit wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 11/9/15, 1:53 PM, in article slrnn421tf.oua.jedi@nomad.mishnet, >>>>>> "JEDIDIAH" <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 2015-11-09, Saint George <stgeorge@england.eng> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 09/11/2015 03:28 pm, chrisv wrote: >>>>>>>>> Saint George wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> chrisv wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Saint George wrote: >> >> [deletia] >> >>>> One of your dumbest questions to date. The OS could if Apple either >>>> built a super computer or licensed right to one that wanted to. >>> >>> No, the OS can *not* >>> OSX has no NUMA capability. Its control of processors is a hoot compared >>> to linux >> >> While this is certainly relevant for 64-CPU machines, I don't think it >> has anything to do with the machines on the top-500 supercomputers list. >> >>> >>> Look up the specs for the single entry which ever made its way into the >>> top-500 list. >>> The hardware specs of the supported machine make it a toy compared to the >>> linux based computers, even of that time frame >>> >>> That is also the reason why windows has no chance of ever making it again >>> into the top-500 list. Windows as well as OSX have no means to control >>> large numbers of processors >> >> ??? >> >> I thought "supercomputers" anymore were just clusters of tiny machines. > > Most of them have thousands of CPUs ...in a cluster. Large NUMA machines are actually quite rare these days.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-10 14:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3N2dnQUnU44hxt_LnZ2dnUU7-c-dnZ2d@bresnan.com> |
| In reply to | #332204 |
On 11/10/15 02:14, Peter Köhlmann wrote: > JEDIDIAH wrote: > >> On 2015-11-09, Peter Köhlmann<peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote: >>> Lloyd Parsons wrote: >>> >>>> On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 23:21:58 +0100, Peter Köhlmann wrote: >>>> >>>>> Snit wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 11/9/15, 1:53 PM, in article slrnn421tf.oua.jedi@nomad.mishnet, >>>>>> "JEDIDIAH"<jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 2015-11-09, Saint George<stgeorge@england.eng> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 09/11/2015 03:28 pm, chrisv wrote: >>>>>>>>> Saint George wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> chrisv wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Saint George wrote: >> >> [deletia] >> >>>> One of your dumbest questions to date. The OS could if Apple either >>>> built a super computer or licensed right to one that wanted to. >>> >>> No, the OS can *not* >>> OSX has no NUMA capability. Its control of processors is a hoot compared >>> to linux >> >> While this is certainly relevant for 64-CPU machines, I don't think it >> has anything to do with the machines on the top-500 supercomputers list. >> >>> >>> Look up the specs for the single entry which ever made its way into the >>> top-500 list. >>> The hardware specs of the supported machine make it a toy compared to the >>> linux based computers, even of that time frame >>> >>> That is also the reason why windows has no chance of ever making it again >>> into the top-500 list. Windows as well as OSX have no means to control >>> large numbers of processors >> >> ??? >> >> I thought "supercomputers" anymore were just clusters of tiny machines. > > Most of them have thousands of CPUs And none that you can afford. A moot point in COLA... yet you morons think that say Cray uses linux you think that it is stock linux. Wrong again, Koldcrud. It's been heavily recoded for their own architecture and mission purpose. None of which has anything to do with your x86 pee-cee. -- My problem is that I don't have enough middle fingers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-10 14:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3N2dnQonU47Fxt_LnZ2dnUU7-c-dnZ2d@bresnan.com> |
| In reply to | #332169 |
On 11/09/15 19:43, JEDIDIAH wrote: > On 2015-11-09, Peter Köhlmann<peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote: >> Lloyd Parsons wrote: >> >>> On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 23:21:58 +0100, Peter Köhlmann wrote: >>> >>>> Snit wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 11/9/15, 1:53 PM, in article slrnn421tf.oua.jedi@nomad.mishnet, >>>>> "JEDIDIAH"<jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 2015-11-09, Saint George<stgeorge@england.eng> wrote: >>>>>>> On 09/11/2015 03:28 pm, chrisv wrote: >>>>>>>> Saint George wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> chrisv wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Saint George wrote: > > [deletia] > >>> One of your dumbest questions to date. The OS could if Apple either >>> built a super computer or licensed right to one that wanted to. >> >> No, the OS can *not* >> OSX has no NUMA capability. Its control of processors is a hoot compared to >> linux > > While this is certainly relevant for 64-CPU machines, I don't think it > has anything to do with the machines on the top-500 supercomputers list. > >> >> Look up the specs for the single entry which ever made its way into the >> top-500 list. >> The hardware specs of the supported machine make it a toy compared to the >> linux based computers, even of that time frame >> >> That is also the reason why windows has no chance of ever making it again >> into the top-500 list. Windows as well as OSX have no means to control large >> numbers of processors > > ??? > > I thought "supercomputers" anymore were just clusters of tiny machines. That's just koldtard moving the goal posts to fit his crazy lost argument. -- My problem is that I don't have enough middle fingers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DFS <nospam@dfs.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-10 09:04 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n1stcj$kmv$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #332045 |
On 11/9/2015 5:36 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote: > That is also the reason why windows has no chance of ever making it again > into the top-500 list. huh? There's still a Windows HPC system on the list (as of Jun 2015). Which means you're wrong again. As usual. Its current rank is #436, but when it first appeared on the Top 500 list it was ranked #11. > Windows as well as OSX have no means to control large > numbers of processors The only Windows system on the latest Top 500 list has 30720 cores, which is in the top 35% of core counts. Which means you're wrong again. As usual.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-10 15:33 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n1sv3r$r7g$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #332255 |
DFS wrote: > On 11/9/2015 5:36 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote: > >> That is also the reason why windows has no chance of ever making it again >> into the top-500 list. > > huh? There's still a Windows HPC system on the list (as of Jun 2015). > > Which means you're wrong again. As usual. What part of "again" is too difficult for you? > > Its current rank is #436, but when it first appeared on the Top 500 list > it was ranked #11. > > > >> Windows as well as OSX have no means to control large >> numbers of processors > > > The only Windows system on the latest Top 500 list has 30720 cores, > which is in the top 35% of core counts. > > Which means you're wrong again. As usual. Now ask yourself why that many cores only rank it that low It is because windows can't handle many cores good enough. Instead it has to rely on whole groups of cores. Which makes it rather inefficient
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-10 08:49 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <am044b5jj1bg8bi1rcc8qbt4mvsh18a2mh@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #332265 |
> some dumb fsck wrote: >> >> Its current rank is #436, but when it first appeared on the Top 500 list >> it was ranked #11. Does that dispute the claim that, for serious number crunching, Linux leads the way, Dumfsck? Hey, Dumfsck, can Microshaft's giving-away Win10 upgrades for free be interpreted as "panic", or are you a filthy lying hypocrite? -- "Panic is giving your hobby code away for free, because it's not good enough to compete." - DumFSck
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-10 15:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <daef8gFd88pU5@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #332267 |
On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 08:49:02 -0600, chrisv wrote: >> some dumb fsck wrote: >>> >>> Its current rank is #436, but when it first appeared on the Top 500 >>> list it was ranked #11. > > Does that dispute the claim that, for serious number crunching, Linux > leads the way, Dumfsck? > > Hey, Dumfsck, can Microshaft's giving-away Win10 upgrades for free be > interpreted as "panic", or are you a filthy lying hypocrite? It can be but it wouldn't necessarily be true. -- Lloyd
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-10 14:05 -0700 |
| Subject | Quiet, Turdv. |
| Message-ID | <3N2dnQcnU46Swd_LnZ2dnUU7-c9i4p2d@bresnan.com> |
| In reply to | #332267 |
On 11/10/15 07:49, chrisv wrote: >> some dumb fsck wrote: >>> >>> Its current rank is #436, but when it first appeared on the Top 500 list >>> it was ranked #11. > > Does that dispute the claim that, for serious number crunching, Linux > leads the way, Dumfsck? > > Hey, Dumfsck, can Microshaft's giving-away Win10 upgrades for free be > interpreted as "panic", or are you a filthy lying hypocrite? > -- My problem is that I don't have enough middle fingers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DFS <nospam@dfs.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-11 09:34 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n1vjik$1tg$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #332267 |
On 11/10/2015 9:49 AM, shitv wrote: >> some dumb fsck wrote: >>> >> >>> >>Its current rank is #436, but when it first appeared on the Top 500 list >>> >>it was ranked #11. > Does that dispute the claim that, for serious number crunching, Linux > leads the way, Dumfsck? It was just an interesting factoid, turd. > Hey, Dumfsck, can Microshaft's giving-away Win10 upgrades for free be > interpreted as "panic", or are you a filthy lying hypocrite? Only for one year, and only to owners of Win7 Pro and Win8x. Get your facts straight, dumbass. > -- "Panic is giving your hobby code away for free, because it's not good > enough to compete." - DumFSck And they still do it. Linux: free since 1991, now at 1.4% of the desktop! What a joke.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy
csiph-web