
Linux: It doesn't get any faster - nreece
http://blogs.computerworld.com/linux_it_doesnt_get_any_faster
======
amalcon
Don't take this the wrong way, but the article's data doesn't say what they
want it to. While it _is_ true that Linux can be stripped down farther than
Windows (and thus do raw calculations faster), that isn't necessarily the only
reason that supercomputers use Linux.

For example, Windows licenses for supercomputers are very expensive, as
historically they're server editions priced by CPU count. This is a drop in
the bucket where supercomputers are concerned, but this would mean that
Windows would need to be better in some other way: even if it's not much,
people don't generally like to pay for nothing. The difference could almost
mean another CPU in some cases.

Also, while Windows has much better consumer hardware support, this aspect of
compatibility is not relevant to supercomputers. Linux has much better support
for different hardware architectures (the so-called "Playstation 3 processor"
can run Linux, but not Windows). This will typically mean additional cost
savings for a Linux setup, as they won't need to pay the x86 premium (in terms
of $$/processing power).

I'd place tunability at a distant second to hardware costs, and software costs
at a distant third. I'm just curious why more of them don't go with BSD.

~~~
scott_s
Linux installs on supercomputers often aren't "stripped down" when compared to
a typical server install. Instead, they're customized, often at the kernel
level. A Linux install on a PS3 is mostly just a stock PowerPC kernel and
user-land binaries, with some kernel patches for communication with the Cell's
SPEs. Such customization is infeasible in Windows. (It's possible, just really
hard. You could try to get Microsoft to do it, but that's unlikely. Microsoft
does allow certain groups to get access to the source code, but that's not
easy. And even with access, I assume it's hard to make changes since, as
proprietary code, there's less global knowledge and resources to help you.)

That is the key reason why Linux is used instead of Windows for
supercomputers: customization.

As for Linux versus BSD, the short answer is Linux is more popular. The long
answer - _why_ Linux is more popular - I don't know.

------
jncraton
_The Windows' fan club likes to point out that Windows is far more popular
than Linux. The reason for that has nothing to do with quality and everything
to do with monopoly._

This is pretty flawed reasoning. Sure, Linux is much faster than Windows when
it comes to supercomputing and raw processing power, but that doesn't mean
that it is a better operating system for everyday users.

Linux doesn't have a standardized or intuitive GUI out of the box and creating
a productive desktop environment that suits the user requires time and effort.
Other operating system provide much more productive human interfaces which
enhances productivity far more than raw processing power ever will.

~~~
LogicHoleFlaw
Um. Have you ever tried Ubuntu? The "standardized gui" and "desktop
environment" are a non-issue these days. The list of non-monopoly reasons for
Microsoft dominance is growing thin.

Though, I'll go ahead and contradict myself by noting that manufacturers such
as Dell are today shipping Linux with some PCs.

~~~
jncraton
I run Ubuntu daily. I love Linux, and I want to see it improve. Linux
dominates in the area of raw performance, but that isn't the main thing that
matters to an end user.

When I sit down at a Mac, I know exactly how to do everything because all the
tools and utilities are organized in a way that I understand. When I sit down
at someone's customized Linux machine, it isn't always going to be easy to sit
down and actually get work done.

~~~
nixme
In your original post, you said:

> Other operating system provide _much more_ productive human interfaces which
> enhances productivity far more than raw processing power ever will.
> (emphasis added)

I disagree with that. A highly customized Linux (or BSD) interface can be much
more productive than other operating systems.

Yes, you're right that sitting down at a random Mac (Aqua) or Windows box is
easier to pick up and get going, but that does not rule out that for daily use
a tuned Unix desktop environment _can_ be much more productive than the others
would ever be.

~~~
jncraton
You're correct.

For someone who understand usability and interface design, the ability to
customize will enhance productivity. Unfortunately, most users don't
understand this, so the ability to customize generally leads to clutter (see
myspace).

------
stevecooperorg
The author suggests that popularity should be related to raw processing power.
If his premise was true, Beowulf clusters would be more popular than Nintendo
DS's.

"The Windows' fan club likes to point out that Windows is far more popular
than Linux. The reason for that has nothing to do with quality and everything
to do with monopoly. Nothing shows that better than the semi-annual TOP500
list of the world's most powerful supercomputers."

Utter drivel.

~~~
anigbrowl
Quite. It's like saying the Honda Civic is no good because the Terex Titan
(world's largest truck) is so much more powerful. Mind you, I have heard
exactly that argument from protectionist zealots.

------
kez
Perhaps the most misleading title of an article I've ever seen.

"It doesn't get any faster than Linux" would get my vote - on first glance, I
thought some caveat had been found in the kernel, meaning it wouldn't go "any
faster" than it presently does.

------
Tichy
"IBM's Sony PlayStation 3 processor"

I am sure it used to have another name, though? Also, really the same version
as in the PS3, or the "pro" version? (Ah, now I remember: "Cell" was the
name).

~~~
dmm
The version used in Roadrunner is different than the ps3 one. It uses the same
instruction set but can perform ops on doubles much faster.

------
Goladus
How did BSD come in behind windows?

------
trezor
I don't remember where I read this, but in respect to the topic raised in this
article I remember someone criticized lots of the big players (IBM) for
focusing too much on server technology and things which would make Linux scale
rather than things which would be useful for desktop users.

As for the article being junk, I see lots of other posters have addressed that
already.

~~~
scott_s
But what incentive do the big players have for improving the Linux desktop?
The server/computational node is where they're invested.

