11
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by TCB13@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.ml

tr:dr; he says "x86 took over the server market" because it was the same architecture developers in companies had on their machines thus it made it very easy to develop applications on their machines to then ship to the servers.

Now this, among others he made, are very good points on how and why it is hard for ARM to get mainstream on the datacenter, however I also feel like he kind lost touch with reality on this one...

He's comparing two very different situations, more specifically eras. Developers aren't so tied anymore like they used to be to the underlaying hardware. The software development market evolved from C to very high language languages such as Javascript/Typescript and the majority of stuff developed is done or will be done in those languages thus the CPU architecture becomes irrelevant.

Obviously very big companies such as Google, Microsoft and Amazon are more than happy to pay the little "tax" to ensure Javascript runs fine on ARM than to pay the big bucks they pay for x86..

What are your thoughts?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Windex007@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I think people underestimate the challenges involved when building software systems tightly coupled to the underlying hardware (like if you are a team tasked with building a next gen server).

Successful companies in the space don't underestimate it though, the engineers who do the work don't underestimate it, and Linus doesn't underestimate it either.

The domain knowledge in your org required to mitigate the business risk isn't trivial. The value proposition always needs to be pretty juicy to overcome the inertia present caused by institutional familiarity. Like, can we save a few million on silicon? Sure. Do we think we understand the challenges well enough to keep our hardware release schedules without taking shortcuts that will result in reputational impact? Do we think we have the right people in place to oversee the switch?

Over and over again, it comes back to "is it worth it", and it's much more complex of a question to offer than just picking the cheaper chips.

I imagine at this point there is probably a metric fuckton of enterprise software what strictly dictate that it must be run on X86. Even if it doesn't have to. If you stray from the vendor hardware requirements, bullshit or not, you'll lose your support. There is likely friction on some consumer segments as well on the uptake.

this post was submitted on 22 Sep 2023
11 points (55.3% liked)

Technology

35127 readers
121 users here now

This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.


Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.


Rules:

1: All Lemmy rules apply

2: Do not post low effort posts

3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff

4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.

5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)

6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist

7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS