5 ms·

> Never called it perfect. I wrote "worse is better"--the "best" losing out to the "good enough". What good enough is depends. Sure maybe if you built new proc

> Never called it perfect. I wrote "worse is better"--the "best" losing out to the "good enough". What good enough is depends. Sure maybe if you built new processors and everything it would be even better. But using the same processor at the core as typical servers, and just sounding it with a slightly different architecture can improve things. That's exactly what google does too. > Of course Cantrill et. al. had problems with them, since they were running Solaris/Indiana on x86_64 gear Ah the old 'its the os fault' excuse. Classic. > dead, just like Joyent Joyent was bought, it didn't go bust and the actual infrastructure is still running. > Google also used bare-bones discount servers in their early days Again, that's exactly what I am saying. Why do you think google stopped doing that? > At FAANG-scale it's no longer just about cost or quality; it's about being in control of your own business. Except if you actually listen to interviews of the people who did those innovations at Google and co, they stopped working with the traditional vendors and did costume stuff, it was because they couldn't get the quality out of the traditional architecture. That is also why google invested in coreboot, linuxboot and are running their internal infrastructure on things like NERF firmware, instead of the standard you get from the typical vendors. > #2 would seem to be 0xide's target market, but as someone who inhabits that space, I am unimpressed. Have you done an actual detailed comparison with real price quotes compared to a traditional system plus all the software and setup and so on? Because if you haven't its not worth much as an opinion.

hello_computer 3y ago
> Ah the old 'its the os fault' excuse. Classic. The problem wasn't Solaris. The problem wasn't x86. The problem was Cantrill & Co.'s expectations. The industry began moving to availability in software instead of hardware back in the early 2000s. Premium iron vendors fell on hard times because of this. They had a premium product with a premium price, but demand for it dried-up. Cantrill came from one of those companies, and is right to think commodity x86 hardware is crap in comparison, but it doesn't matter for the mid-tier and below markets anymore. They've already cleared this obstacle. > That is also why google... What Google does is irrelevant to this discussion. That is not 0xide's market. Businesses seriously competing in the compute space are going to vertically integrate as much as possible--not just motherboards and lights-out management, but all the way down to the CPU: Google's Cypress & Maple, AWS's Graviton, Apple's M1. Switching to 0xide kit is not vertical integration.
- bcantrill 3y ago
  I have heard a lot of whoppers in my time, but hearing that my expectations are too high might be a first!
  - hello_computer 3y ago
    Just going off what fanboy wrote. If you went into the business of running foreign workloads on commodity x86 hardware expecting anything more than pain and sadness, your expectations were too high.
    - panick21_ 3y ago
      I am so confused by your position. It seems to be that you believe x86 PC hardware is garbage, but that for most companies garbage is just perfectly fine and the only people who shouldn't use garbage are companies that can make their own CPU? And anybody that tries to improve the status-quo shouldn't even try. That's quite a line of argument.
      - hello_computer 3y ago
        > I am so confused by your position If you read with a little less haste and hostility, and a little more humility--rather than just jumping in and getting personal, you will see that I am being perfectly clear. I am saying that this battle already played-out, 15-20 years ago. The people who need primo hardware already have things like zseries, which 0xide is in no position to compete with. The people who are competing against Azure and AWS have to make their own hardware--partly to distinguish themselves in the marketplace, partly because they'd end up sharecropping for their vendor if they did otherwise. The rest is in the commodity band, where interchangeability is key. An okay server that I can swap-out with any other vendor is an asset. A fantastic server, with custom components & bespoke tooling, that I can only get from one supplier, is a liability. All of their open sourcing makes no difference if it only runs on their equipment.
        3y ago

hello_computer 3y ago

> Ah the old 'its the os fault' excuse. Classic. The problem wasn't Solaris. The problem wasn't x86. The problem was Cantrill & Co.'s expectations. The industry began moving to availability in software instead of hardware back in the early 2000s. Premium iron vendors fell on hard times because of this. They had a premium product with a premium price, but demand for it dried-up. Cantrill came from one of those companies, and is right to think commodity x86 hardware is crap in comparison, but it doesn't matter for the mid-tier and below markets anymore. They've already cleared this obstacle. > That is also why google... What Google does is irrelevant to this discussion. That is not 0xide's market. Businesses seriously competing in the compute space are going to vertically integrate as much as possible--not just motherboards and lights-out management, but all the way down to the CPU: Google's Cypress & Maple, AWS's Graviton, Apple's M1. Switching to 0xide kit is not vertical integration.

bcantrill 3y ago
I have heard a lot of whoppers in my time, but hearing that my expectations are too high might be a first!
- hello_computer 3y ago
  Just going off what fanboy wrote. If you went into the business of running foreign workloads on commodity x86 hardware expecting anything more than pain and sadness, your expectations were too high.
  - panick21_ 3y ago
    I am so confused by your position. It seems to be that you believe x86 PC hardware is garbage, but that for most companies garbage is just perfectly fine and the only people who shouldn't use garbage are companies that can make their own CPU? And anybody that tries to improve the status-quo shouldn't even try. That's quite a line of argument.
    - hello_computer 3y ago
      > I am so confused by your position If you read with a little less haste and hostility, and a little more humility--rather than just jumping in and getting personal, you will see that I am being perfectly clear. I am saying that this battle already played-out, 15-20 years ago. The people who need primo hardware already have things like zseries, which 0xide is in no position to compete with. The people who are competing against Azure and AWS have to make their own hardware--partly to distinguish themselves in the marketplace, partly because they'd end up sharecropping for their vendor if they did otherwise. The rest is in the commodity band, where interchangeability is key. An okay server that I can swap-out with any other vendor is an asset. A fantastic server, with custom components & bespoke tooling, that I can only get from one supplier, is a liability. All of their open sourcing makes no difference if it only runs on their equipment.
      - 3y ago