Does OpenBSD have ZFS support? No? Then I'm sticking with FreeBSD.
Press ctrl-D to bypass the initial long boot.
Do you have any benchmarks to back that up? The ones I see from SPEC pretty much has Intel dominating in FP (compared to what few Itanium and POWER results there are).
If they're made from someone else, the patient has to take immunosuppresive drugs. That sets them up for weird infections. If they're made from the patient's own cells, they'd still have to deal with the autoimmune response that destroyed the original beta cells in the first place (assuming type 1 diabetes).
Linux distribution? I'd go with Cyanogenmod.
Before switching to x86: x86 sucks ass! PowerPC all the way!
After switching to x86: x86 is awesome! Glad we don't have PowerPC anymore!
Never understood why anyone would buy this over a Tesla. The Fisker was heavier and way more expensive. If I wanted a range-extended hybrid-electric luxury car, I'd get the Cadillac ELR instead.
The main feature is data checksumming. All the other features are just icing on the cake (snapshots, data dedup, etc.). Ars has a good article with illustrations.
The main huge feature of filesystems like zfs and btrfs is check summing of the filesystem for enhanced data integrity. Snapshots, data deduplication, etc. are also nice features, but without the check summing, any file system issues will be multiplied (eg wrong bits would be propagated through the snapshots).
Somewhat analogous to P4 but not quite in that Bulldozer IPC is about at Phenom II levels. See here: fully loaded, IPC is equivalent to Sandy Bridge/Ivy Bridge but single-threaded it's about at Phenom II IPC.
AMD's original goal was to get Bulldozer to have similar IPC as Phenom II. Basically, Piledriver is what Bulldozer should have been.
Intel has had several RISC chips (eg i960), but Itanium is VLIW (ie not RISC or CISC).
Certainly it can be argued that it's AMD's fault for the current dominance of x86, but it's also true that none of the other architectures were cheap enough for the general populace to adopt, hence the abundance of ARM nowadays and POWER, SPARC, and currently on life support
Actually, Nexgen was the first to do x86 -> RISC. Then Intel with Pentium Pro. Then AMD with K5. As far as I recall, Cyrix never did x86 -> RISC back then until they were acquired by VIA (ie, Cyrix M series chips executed x86 directly, but VIA Epia and later translate).
No relation to energy used. It's in the article: Haswell will get it's work done faster and use about the same energy as the slower chips that take longer. What matters is architecture, not ISA (Atom is lower power than Haswell at the same process node).
And how did you do it?