You must log in or # to comment.
Ah hahahaha!!!
Windows! Some dumbass put Windows on a supercomputer!
And Mac! Whatever that means 🤣
Prob Microsoft themselves
Ironically, even Microsoft uses Linux in its Azure datacenters, iirc
They use a mixture of Windows and Linux. They do use Linux quite a bit, but they also have a lot of Hyper-V servers.
True. Never meant to say they use Linux exclusively; thanks for clarification anyway!
Surprised to learn that there were windows based Supercomputers.
Those were the basic entry level configurations needed to run Windows Vista with Aero effects.
Meh, you just needed a discrete GPU, and not even a good one either. Just a basic, bare-bones card with 128MB of VRAM and pixel shader 2.0 support would have sufficed, but sadly most users didn’t even have that back in 06-08.
It was mostly the consumer’s fault for buying cheap garbage laptops with trash-tier iGPUs in them, and the manufacturer’s for slapping a “compatible with Vista” sticker on them and pushing those shitboxes on consumers. If you had a half-decent $700-800 PC then, Vista ran like a dream.
No, it was mostly the manufacturers fault for implying that their machine would run the operating system it shipped with well. Well that and Microsoft’s fault for strong arming them to push Vista on machines that weren’t going to run it well.
APUs obviously weren’t a thing yet, and it was common knowledge back then that contemporary iGPUs were complete and utter trash. I mean they were so weak that you couldn’t even play HD video or even enable some of XP’s very basic graphical effects with most integrated graphics.
Everyone knew that you needed a dedicated graphics card back then, so you can and should in fact put some blame on the consumer for being dumb enough to buy a PC without one, regardless of what the sticker said. I mean I was a teenager back then and even still I knew better. The blame goes both ways.
No, if you weren’t “involved in the scene” and only had the word of the person at the store then you have no idea what an iGPU is, let alone why they weren’t up to the task of running the very thing it was sold with.
You were a teenager in a time where teenagers average tech knowledge was much higher than before. That is not the same as someone who just learnt they now need one of those computer things for work. Not everyone had someone near them who could explain it to them. Blaming them for not knowing the intricacies of the machines is ridiculous. It was pure greed by Microsoft and the manufacturers.
No vista still sucked with every nagging pop-up.
TweakUAC solved that problem.
Interesting how the tiny BSD fraction had a lead over Linux in 1995
Wow, that’s kind of a lot more Linux than I was expecting, but it also makes sense. Pretty cool tbh.
I saw the thumbnail and thought this was a map of The Netherlands
One of the Top 500 supercountries
Technically accurate
So basically, everybody switched from expensive UNIX™ to cheap “unix”-in-all-but-trademark-certification once it became feasible, and otherwise nothing has changed in 30 years.
Except this time the Unix-like took 100% of the market
Was too clear this thing is just better
BSD is mostly Unix too, so even if Unix didn’t have 100% because of mac and Windows it was like 99%
BSD was embroiled in a messy legal battle with AT&T over Unix copyright. Businesses wouldn’t touch it with a ten foot pole. That’s what really enabled Linux to be anything more than a hobby protect. And we’re all worse for it.
BSD is more UNIX than Linux is, to be fair.
Mac is BSD
BSD is BSD-like
BSD is BSD-like
It certainly is that, yes.
So you’re telling me that there was a Mac super computer in '05?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_X_(supercomputer)
G5
Oof, in only a couple years it was worthless.
Also known as Big Mac
haha
As someone who worked on designing racks in the super computer space about 10 q5vyrs ago I had no clue windows and mac even tried to entered the space
There was a time when a bunch of organisations made their own supercomputers by just clustering a lot of regular computers:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_X_(supercomputer)For Windows I couldn’t find anything.
If you google “Windows supercomputer”, you just get lots of results about Microsoft supercomputers, which of course all run on Linux.No there was HPC sku of Windows 2003 and 2008 : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Server_2003#Windows_Compute_Cluster_Server
Microsoft earnestly tried to enter the space with a deployment system, a job scheduler and an MPI implementation. Licenses were quite cheap and they were pushing hard with free consulting and support, but it did not stick.
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.
But, surely Windows is the wrong OS?
Windows is a per-user GUI… supercomputing is all about crunching numbers, isn’t it?
I can understand M$ trying to get into this market and I know Windows server can be used to run stuff, but again, you don’t need a GUI on each node a supercomputer they’d be better off with DOS…?
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 (at the time - and I wonder if they had internal beta versions of stuff that Windows ships standard now, like SSH…), perhaps by sheer force of will and hard work.
Maybe windows is not used in supercomputers often because unix and linux is more flexiable for the cpus they use(Power9,Sparc,etc)
More importantly, they can’t adapt Windows to their needs.
Plus Linux doesn’t limit you in the number of drives, whereas Windows limits you from A to Z. I read it here.
For people who haven’t installed Windows before, the default boot drive is G, and the default file system is C
So you only have 25 to work with (everything but G)
Almost, the default boot drive is C:, everything gets mapped after that. So if you have a second HDD at D: and a disk reader at E:, any USBs you plug in would go to F:.
Why do you copy the boot files from C and put them in G during install then?
I don’t think anybody does that, honestly.
You can have a helper script do it for you (the gui) but it still happening in the background
The boot files go into C:, not G:.
Windows can’t operate if you did that, it doesn’t let you.
This looks impressive for Linux, and I’m glad FLOSS has such an impact! However, I wonder if the numbers are still this good if you consider more supercomputers. Maybe not. Or maybe yes! We’d have to see the evidence.
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 my impression is 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.
Now the real question is what package manager are they using? apt or yum? Lol
Also, Gnome or KDE?
It’s probably mostly cli
Yeah, but gterminal or konsole?
edit: apparently people didn’t realise this was a really obvious joke
That’s a terminal emulator
thatsthejoke.jpg
they specifically built it to only use snaps
Wait what Mac?
The Big Mac. 3rd fastest when it was built and also the cheapest, costing only $5.2 million.
Interesting. It’s like those data centers that ran on thousands of Xboxes
Wha?
(searches interwebs)
Wow, that completely passed me by…
I think it was PS3 that shipped with “Other OS” functionality, and were sold a little cheaper than production costs would indicate, to make it up on games.
Only thing is, a bunch of institutions discovered you could order a pallet of PS3’s, set up Linux, and have a pretty skookum cluster for cheap.
I’m pretty sure Sony dropped “Other OS” not because of vague concerns of piracy, but because they were effectively subsidizing supercomputers.
Don’t know if any of those PS3 clusters made it onto Top500.
Makes me think how PS2 had export restrictions because “its graphics chip is sufficiently powerful to control missiles equipped with terrain reading navigation systems”
That’s so friggin cool to think about!
I remember when 128 but SSL Encryption was export restricted in the mid 90’s. When I first opened an online banking account, the Bank sent a CD with a customized version of Netscape Navigator with 128 bit SSL, and the bank logo in place of the Netscape N.
Mac is a flavor of Unix, not that surprising really.
Mac is also also derived from BSD since it is built on Darwin
What would the other be
TempleOS
When you really have to look deep into god’s mind you just have to put templeOS on a supercomputer.
If you install TempleOS on the fastest supercomputer Frontier, you get Event Horizon.
WARNING: Gory, disturbing pictureDo NOT network-enable TempleOS.
God will get angry if you do.
