But, surely Windows is the wrong OS?
Oh yes! To be clear - trying to put any version of Windows on a super-computer is every bit as insane as you might imagine. By what I heard in the rumor mill, it went every bit as badly as anyone might have guessed.
But I like to root for an underdog, and it was neat to hear about Microsoft engineers trying to take the Windows kernel somewhere it had no rational excuse to run, perhaps by sheer force of will and hard work.
When you make a lot of money, the number you see in your account starts to become part of your identity because it differentiates you between you and the people you see every day.
“Tres Comas is for winners.” (A wonderful line delivery by the huge asshole venture fund bro in Silicon Valley, that illustrates your point)
I wonder if the numbers are still this good if you consider more supercomputers.
Great question. My guess is not terribly different.
“Top 500 Supercomputers” is arguably a self-referential term. I’ve seen the term “super-computer” defined whether it was among the 500 fastest computer in the world, on the day it went live.
As new super-computers come online, workloads from older ones tend to migrate to the new ones.
So there usually aren’t a huge number of currently operating supercomputers outside of the top 500.
When a super-computer falls toward the bottom of the top 500, there’s a good chance it is getting turned off soon.
That said, I’m referring here only to the super-computers that spend a lot of time advertising their existence.
I suspect there’s a decent number out there today that prefer not to be listed. But I have no reason to think those don’t also run Linux.
but it did not stick.
Yeah. It was bad. The job of a Supercomputer is to be really fast and really parallel. Windows for Supercomputing was… not.
I honestly thought it might make it, considering the engineering talent that Microsoft had.
But I think time proves that Unix and Linux just had an insurmountable head start. Windows, to the best of my knowledge, never came close to closing the gap.
The first thing I do to, if I need to get the size down, is swap out Gnome for one of the X11 Windows managers, usually XFCE.
I usually do this by starting from the minimal install and building up, as schizo already suggested.
That said, I guess I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that Linux Mint is an easy way to get Debian’s core with the XFCE window manager.
Looks like Mint starts at 3GB - 8GB, depending on options chosen?
Disclaimer: It’s honestly been awhile since I really paid attention to my own Linux install size, as long as it’s below 40GB.
the live disk won’t find my Wifi
Oof.
In case it helps: I have solved that problem for myself using a $9.00 USB Wifi dongle.
For whatever reason (other contributors facing the same issue?), I have found that every cheapo USB Wifi dongle I have tried has worked perfectly with the minimal Linux images.
I realize I might have just gotten really lucky a bunch of times, but it could be worth a try.
Providing competition against media monopolies is illegal.
If they can’t sell you your memories, they think no one should have them. They will let your memories burn and be lost before they let you own or share them.
They’ll keep this up and they will continue to work to make intellectual property never enter the public domain.
I’m too chicken to be a pirate, myself. But I’m aware that pirates and librarians are the only ones with any intent to preserve works of art for the public.
Can you be more specific?
Sure.
I’ve had discussions about my impression that Rust’s build chain can be a bit surly compared to other popular languages.
I don’t particularly mean it as a criticism - of course Rust’s security enforcement comes with more warnings and errors.
But the novel part of the interactions, for me, was Rust community members coming at me with ‘well get gud, newbie’.
These interactions are particularly ironic, given my experiences and specialties. I’m an old school veteran software developer. I have spent over half of my career in dedicated Cybersecurity roles.
These conversations converted me from a mildly interested Rust proponent into a casual Rust critic.
I have heard of him compare the cult-like following Rust has with the whole Vim/Emacs tribalism thing.
Heh.
I do think the worst thing going for Rust, right now, is the Rust community.
It feels like few specific jackasses from the Java community made the jump to Rust, and no one had the sense to slap them with a newspaper.
Ha! I have an AI for that! Gotcha!
…
On, but the AI trains now on other docs that I used an AI to write…
…
Oh shit…
Yeah. When I need additional insights on a difficult technical configuration, it’s nice to be able to speak to an artificial insufferable dipshit, rather than a real human insufferable dipshit.
The AI ones continue helping me even after I explain to them how they come across to real humans. (I do my best not to mention it to the insufferable Human dipshits, of course.)
Yeah. We desperately need anti-trust laws to actually be enforced. I think we’ve proven that nuanced and thoughtful rules don’t cut it, so I’m in favor of some deeply restrictive new rules that are impossible to mis-interpret.
I also think we should create laws with immediate financial incentives for breaking up monopolies.
I’m essence, we need a law that I, as a random citizen, can just climb into any parked Amazon truck and take it home.
I think Amazon would be a lot more interested in splitting the company along appropriately legal lines if the alternative was the owned capital just getting declared public property on a random Tuesday next year.
I’ve found enshittification to go in cycles, with mixed results for recovery.
Anyway. There’s cause for hope, along with plenty of reasons to be concerned.
Annecdotaly, a recent patch had notes that implied it fixes this issue. I got so tired of the dock being unreliable that I haven’t confirmed it, though.
Spot on. And I’ve found it’s even that bad at small companies too, if the company is more than five years old.
Maybe because I tried to follow MS’s “use your own distro” instructions instead of using something prepackaged?
Not op, and I don’t care about systemd, but…
When I’ve used anything I wanted to substantially modify, I’ve followed the “use your own distro” instructions. In the past I’ve done this because WSL had a strong assumption of exactly one copy of each distro, and I like to abuse it for more.
Overall, I’ve had a better time with the the “bring your own distro” instructions. But some of my experiences with WSL were before they even got the Windows Store installer working correctly.
More recently, I recall Windows Store being fine for stock Ubuntu and for stock Debian. But I didn’t find the “bring your own distro” instructions to be much trouble, either. My perhaps faulty memory is that it took maybe ten minutes, last time I used them.
So why are you advising to change the default install of Debian to include it?
I didn’t advice any such thing. My edit is just to acknowledge someone else who makes it part of their process.
Citation needed.
I shared my personal experience and you turned it into a distro war. Go look up your own damn sources.
Pretty sure this is either personal opinion or anti-canonical, anti-snap ideology.
Fuck yes. It’s both! Snap is a slap in the face to the contributors who brought Canonical this far. I appreciate their partnership so far, and now, speaking as a package maintainer, Canonical can fuck right off.
Targeting WSL users with this rhetoric is ridiculous.
Helping people make an informed decision about their tool chain is rhetoric? Give me a fucking break.
I don’t like Ubuntu. That’s not a secret. Ubuntu is a fine option for total newbies. People using WSL tend not to be total newbies and may well run into real issues (such as the ones that prompted me to switch), thanks to snap.
I mean, I didn’t read terribly closely, because I already made my choice.
My reason is that the benefits of Ubuntu over Debian are most noticeable in the GUI, which WSL doesn’t contain.
In contrast, I find the benefits of Debian over Ubuntu to be most noticeable on the command line, which is all we get in WSL anyway.
To me this is some solid advice that I already knew.
I think there’s also a fair assumption by the author that anyone running WSL isn’t a total Linux newbie. I personally, think of WSL as an intermediate skill level way to run Linux, because WSL is still - frankly - a huge pain in the ass, when contrasted with trying out a bootable USB drive, and then only gives the command line, which is also a very limited way to experience Linux. (I think it will get better, but today WSL is not a way that I recommend to newbies to try out Linux.)
That’s a fair enough reason. I personally never noticed because the “this isn’t running” message is pretty clear to me. But I can see how that’s a potential blocker for newer Linux users.
I dont know of anywhere that Microsoft confirms, officially, that Azure, itself, is largely running on Linux. They share stats about what workloads other are running on it, but not, to my knowledge, about what it is compared of.
I suppose that would be an oversimplification, anyway.
But that Azure itself is running mostly on Linux is an open secret among folks who spend time chatting with engineers who have worked into he Azure cloud.
When I have chatted with them, Azure cloud engineers have displayed huge amouts of Linux experience while they sometimes needed to “phone a friend” to answer Windows server edition questions.