Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Windows invades Linux territory
Computing ^ | 12 April 2006 | Roger Howorth

Posted on 04/13/2006 9:04:23 AM PDT by ShadowAce

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-31 next last

1 posted on 04/13/2006 9:04:25 AM PDT by ShadowAce
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: rdb3; chance33_98; Calvinist_Dark_Lord; Bush2000; PenguinWry; GodGunsandGuts; CyberCowboy777; ...

2 posted on 04/13/2006 9:04:44 AM PDT by ShadowAce (Linux -- The Ultimate Windows Service Pack)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce

Somehow the terms "High Performance Computing" and "Excel Spreadsheets" should never appear in the same article.


3 posted on 04/13/2006 9:08:49 AM PDT by Pessimist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pessimist

heh--I was thinking the same thing. Excel?


4 posted on 04/13/2006 9:11:06 AM PDT by ShadowAce (Linux -- The Ultimate Windows Service Pack)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Pessimist

Marketeers at work.


5 posted on 04/13/2006 9:14:16 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach (History is soon Forgotten,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce

Clustering is perhaps the area Windows is most UN-suited to. While I can see doing research to keep up in the field, the fact is Linux is so popular in clusters because it's free-as-in-beer. No one that runs a cluster center is going to drop Linux when switching to a Windows cluster will additionally cost them a license fee for each and every copy on each node. Beowulf clusters caught on in the first place because researchers realized they could get supercomputer performance by adding a bunch of pc caliber servers together to act as one machine, without having to pay license fees for each machine's OS.


6 posted on 04/13/2006 9:18:14 AM PDT by DesScorp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DesScorp

"Clustering is perhaps the area Windows is most UN-suited to."

That and HPC in general. HPC wants efficient, tight code with as few resources devoted to the OS as possible. That is the antithesis of Microsoft software development practices.

Linux is much better in that regard.


7 posted on 04/13/2006 9:21:23 AM PDT by PreciousLiberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce

When Microsoft talks about "High-Performance Computing" they really mean that it 'Blue Screens' faster than anything you've ever seen before. Now, they'll have entire clusters with a BSoD; it's actually quite impressive in a sick and twisted sort of way.


8 posted on 04/13/2006 9:21:59 AM PDT by vikingd00d
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vikingd00d

Well said.


9 posted on 04/13/2006 9:24:21 AM PDT by Clive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: vikingd00d
Now, they'll have entire clusters with a BSoD; it's actually quite impressive in a sick and twisted sort of way.

Some other planet's SETI program should be looking for light in the BSoD's shade of blue.

10 posted on 04/13/2006 9:25:08 AM PDT by KarlInOhio (If you have a leaking pipe, you shut off the water valve before deciding on amnesty for the puddles.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

No kidding. I run both Windows XP and Linux and I've had to reboot the Linux machine once for every 100 Windows reboots.

The only cluster Microsoft seems "Excel" at is the cluster f*!


11 posted on 04/13/2006 9:29:30 AM PDT by angry bastard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce
I think this is the best part:

Microsoft has also developed its own job scheduler and message-passing interface (MPI) layer, built using de facto standard open-source code.

Here Microsoft is using Open Source software to reduce their time to market, lower development costs, an expand into new areas.

Meanwhile they spend a lot of money trying to convince their customers that Open Source is a really bad idea that should avoided at all costs.

12 posted on 04/13/2006 9:31:32 AM PDT by Todd_Gray
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Todd_Gray

heh--don't let our resident troll see this or he'll stroke out.


13 posted on 04/13/2006 9:33:35 AM PDT by ShadowAce (Linux -- The Ultimate Windows Service Pack)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce

Priced comparibly to Linux? Then they should just give it away because the majority of the HPC community uses ROCKS (which is free). As for schedulers they use Condor, SGE or LSF. They will not port their scheduler scripts to some unknown Microcrap scheduler. Why fix it if it doesn't break?


14 posted on 04/13/2006 9:37:11 AM PDT by BigTex5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BigTex5
Priced comparibly to Linux?

That caught my eye, also. I'm assuming they are still referring to their bogus study on TCO.

15 posted on 04/13/2006 9:42:46 AM PDT by ShadowAce (Linux -- The Ultimate Windows Service Pack)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce

1) Microsoft can't beat Linux's price for HPC. Even $50 a piece adds up when you have 1,000 boxes. $50,000 more for what benefit?

2) Microsoft can't make it as easy as Apple has to set up and manage a cluster. Right now you can get HPC cluster systems out-of-the-box from Apple for relatively cheap (ready-to-go 16-node 32-proc starts at $60K with support), and be running HPC applications with little knowledge of clustering.

3) The only place where this might be wanted is those few places that for some reason put huge amounts of data and calculations on Excel spreadsheets. Any Excel spreadsheet that can't be quickly calculated by a modern fast Opteron system needs its data to be put in a different format.


16 posted on 04/13/2006 9:47:16 AM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: angry bastard
The only cluster Microsoft seems "Excel" at is the cluster f*!

ROFL!

17 posted on 04/13/2006 9:56:06 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach (History is soon Forgotten,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce

Yeah, plus I'd say 99% of the HPC binaries are for Unix. Someone would have to port the programs to Windows. We use several programs that were discontinued by the authors from 1999. Source code ain't available.


18 posted on 04/13/2006 9:59:23 AM PDT by BigTex5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce
I'm assuming they are still referring to their bogus study on TCO.

I'd love to see them try that. TCO on a cluster is totally different from what they're used to doing. They're used to saying that training will kill the value of any switch, but in this market everybody's already used to UNIX variants.

Well, except for Cornell, which has the one Windows system on the Top500, down at #310. But Microsoft is about to start pumping money ($400K/year) into them so they can set up a bigger one. You know you're hurting when you have to pay someone to use your stuff.

19 posted on 04/13/2006 10:02:36 AM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce
That infamous TCO study HAS to be based on Red Hat's prices, which are stupid and exhorbant. Use Debian instead and your prices are support staff, period.

Red Hat got their profitability, but they got it by throwing away their mindshare, which will haunt them in the long run. There as a time when virtually every new Linux user tried Red Hat first.
20 posted on 04/13/2006 10:06:11 AM PDT by DesScorp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-31 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson