irix64-mips4. It's sorta my understanding that they are going with "if it works, great, but we're not going out of our way to make it work" attitude. I'm going to give it a test to see if it works, since GCC dropped IRIX.

Until Microsoft moves to IBM style licensing where you pay for the cores on the hardware, regardless of what you are assigning to the virtual machine.

I'm a fan of the way Oracle is doing the licensing on the Oracle DB Appliance - the box comes with lots of cores, but you license them on demand.

And how much more does it cost you in power to run that AMD? Plus add on cost for a more powerful PSU.

No idea yet. I'd expect AMD still rules on performance per $, and am interested in seeing the performance per watt and performance per core metrics. Interested in seeing how it lines up against POWER 8 and Intel's new Xeon (I personally wish AMD could compete in performance per watt against Intel. I'll keep wishing).

Except they really don't act like UNIX, do they? I avoid GNU when I can, they're a pain in my rear at this point.

Explains the whole RHEL-Desktop, doesn't it?

Meh. Oracle just announced a 32-core Sparc proc, with variable thread count (1-8 per core, depending on load need - if it needs better single thread performance is shuts off the other threads). AMD's move next.

I think you might be right on that one. It was a Debian decision.

Since Linux is widespread in enterprises, fringe distros have ceased to matter for most people. Not knowing how to use yum (or in rarer cases apt and yast) means that saying you know Linux isn't true. As much as I like Slackware, they're a minority that nobody cares about. Nobody that matters anyway. People use CentOS because it's compatible with RHEL, right down to the security holes. We're approaching the point that saying "I am a Linux admin" will mean you know systemd and firewalld.

That's not how Linux works. A recent G+ post of mine:

People don't understand how Linux works these days. I constantly hear "Oh, but you can fork it/use a different distro/make your own" in response to complaints about Linux problems (systemd, for example). But that's simply not true. There are really three distributions that matter: Ubuntu, Fedora, and SuSE. Ubuntu because it's the "common man's Linux." Fedora because it is what becomes Red Hat, which brings us to Red Hat and SuSE are what counts in the business world. No other distribution is significant in comparison - the majority of people that use Linux in the enterprise world must use Red Hat or SuSE. No other choice. Doesn't matter what Slackware or Mint or whoever does - they simply do not matter. So issues like systemd, GNOME 3, wayland, firewalld, etc; are much more significant then the average user or average OSS advocate seems to understand - when we fight and complain about something going into Fedora, complain because it breaks compatibility, etc; getting simply dismissed is not the appropriate response. Linux is not the infant OS project it once was, and the distro wars are over. What will happen, is some people will accept the changes, and others will leave for platforms that are less prone to random decisions

On the contrary, it is open source. And it provides competition for GCC. Competition is good - it will cause the GNU team to have to improve their compiler. LLVM also gives those of us that don't like GCC a free alternative to use (though I doubt it'll ever support my platform of choice).

My middle and high schools had TI-81s for students to use if they did not buy their own (I bought a TI-83 for use in non-math classes, like physics...)

If you read the summary, it clearly says the vector of attack was web servers (such as Apache Tomcat). Most desktops are not running a web server - thus not vulnerable.

If you notice, this doesn't effect desktop Linux users. Only servers.