@p

> That can't hold up. The plan is to make it computationally infeasible to run your own infra.

Why do you think that is? I see what you are saying, however with OSS and autists everywhere I can't imagine that will be "super effective", unless the only target is the normal population. Which they themselves don't seem to be all that interested in running their own infra anyway.
Given economic constraints, the shameful coverage from ISPs in burgerland, as well as the unhinged need to jack up rent/gas/food to the point of financial suffocation, as well as a common limiter being that most don't seem to interested in learning about the technology they rely on or valuing their personal information.
I see the appeal to eliminate self managed infra though I question it's effectiveness. Then again, i'm not completely incompetent and I haven't suffered severe brain-rot which is why I can't seem to figure why most businesses/govs/NGOs do what they do.

> Well, if you don't have to have something that's generally programmable and it's got one task, then you don't have to fetch instructions from memory, decode them, pipeline them, catch an interrupt from the SATA controller, wait for the memory bus.

I'll give you that. Even with improvements made to the CPU you'd still have to deal with memory (including the often shitty controllers) and drive considerations. If we found a sustainable way to increase cache sizes, it would be a band-aid, but a damn good one.

> He's almost always right. [Linus looking "smug"]

Almost always, though I'm still butthurt over his acceptance of Rust in the kernel. I don't know what the fuck he was thinking. I don't care for Rust, however I understand it's value; completely ignoring the politics, or the devs.. the assembly Rust generates is what I consider to be "questionable"; and dealing with their "safe" first code style reads to me as "redundant checks" slowing perf.
Why not improve on what has been tried and true, vs. integrating a "newer" thing that has so many draw backs it's... questionable from what I see. Maybe I'm just ignorant (not the first time, nor the last), though I can't get around it.

> Right now, while it's new but things are working, this is where the opportunity is.

Which is why I'm all here for it :02_laugh:
I think it's gonna be sick (still not trying to over-hype myself tho)

> Industry kind of expected that MIPS and SPARC were going to stay where they were, no one expected x86 to eat the world. Coming into the 90s, it was m68k and then all the Serious Business computing was RISC.

Hmmm, I'll have to look more into it. I was oft under the impression that it was a "crime" of opportunity that got CISC to where it is today. It's pretty hard to parse the info. since it both happened so long ago, and speculative recollections suffer with hindsight.
Though that's interesting, what do you think was the primary drive for "x86 to eat the world" if industry was kinda expecting MIPS/SPARC to keep on going? What caused it to stagnate (not sure if that's the best word to describe it)?

> IBM continues get a lot of mileage out of [PowerPC] with Blue Gene et al, it's just not something people put on the desktop.

That's something I don't really get though, it's not like PowerPC is really difficult to support. Apple did it faithfully for years and every time I pull out a PowerPC Mac I find it very enjoyable and you can still find compilers for it. From my memory it just kind of worked for what supported it. I just don't get abandoning PowerPC only to then go back to RISC years later. I remember hearing something about contracts... thought it had something to do with manufacturing issues, though I wasn't paying all that much attention.

IBM seems to be an anomaly in the overall zeitgeist of whatever era they operate in, and in a way it's nice to see they still utilize PowerPC. I don't get it, but it's funny none the less.