"The last non-Linux computers on the list – the two AIX ones – running on POWER7 (in July 2017 ranked 494th and 495th,[78] originally 86th and 85th), dropped off the list in November 2017."
I’m guessing more niche systems like BSD underperform compared to Linux, simply because of how much more dev hours go into improving Linux. It’s not a performance gap that most users would notice, but for companies building supercomputers or operating datacenters, those fractions of a watt and/or second add up fast.
I didn’t even think of that but it’s absolutely the case. I imagine it’s also a big feedback loop, where companies contribute more to tech they use, thus making it more suited to their use case, thus they use it more, and so on.
At last count I think 100% of the top500 list uses Linux.
Ubuntu happens to be the most popular Linux distro, the other big one used in data centers is RHEL/Fedora, and SUSE is also popular especially in Europe.
Ubuntu might be popular on desktop, but it is not dominant on supercomputers, select category "Operating system" in: https://www.top500.org/statistics/list/
is generic Linux
HPE Cray OS
CentOS
Red Hat Enterprise Linux
Ubuntu 22.04
Red Hat Enterprise Linux (possibly different release?)
I think MAAS was easier to setup and configure than FAI to do unattended install of clusters, so if you prefer debian-like then ubuntu might be better.
HPC clusters usually run only the basic software from the distro anyway and everything is recompiled manually, so it doesn't matter much which distro are you using, and support doesn't matter either because you don't use much of the distribution anyway.
In other words, RHEL-like. Fedora is RHEL-like; read the project documentation, it's one of the RHEL development phases.
cPanel, one of the largest hosting control panels, only runs on CloudLinux, which is a RHEL clone (the free version of CloudLinux is AlmaLinux).
How can you say it's impossible to know? What about scraping fingerprints from web servers, FTP, SSH, and email protocols? It's 2025, bro. I think Shodan is already 20 years old...
Yep. As Azure revenue has grown and is now several times larger than Windows revenue, and considering the majority of Azure runs on Linux, MS's most essential business has become Linux.
I assume it's because building a whole new OS just for datacenters costs money, probably requires a lot of refactoring Windows to do something like server core, and might be a net loss of income if no one uses it.
Offer Linux and Microsoft basically just has to maintain the vm infrastructure and hardware, and they don't have to include licensing fees in the balance sheets.
I assume it's because building a whole new OS just for datacenters costs money, probably requires a lot of refactoring
The software environment is the reason everyone uses Linux server-side. Porting and maintaining the code environment for a data center is too expensive.
I mean if your Linux server fucks up you can usually Google your way out of it. If my windows server fucks up I'm hoping i can reimage with a recent snapshot because that shit is not shelf stable
the reason wsl became a thing is that too many ms devs were running linux vm's to develop things for microsoft because programming in windows is a painful experience
Linus is... classic, and has specific requirements. While he's obviously the Linux god, his choice of distro is largely irrelevant. He has even said that the distro doesn't really matter.
I don't have snaps installed, all I needed to do was choose the minimal install option during Kubuntu installation, this is enough, it won't install snap or any snaps
Sure, but the fact that I would have to go with a minimal installation then do heavy configuration afterwards is enough for me to just go with Fedora KDE. With my setup and needs, Fedora KDE is the one that “just works”, and that’s what I’m after.
I do use Ubuntu server for my home server stuff though, because that’s all docker containers anyway.
A lot of development happens on Fedora and it gets driver updates a lot quicker then with Debian.
Fedora is essentially on par with Arch when it comes to "latestness" of the graphics stack. Depending on where it is in its release cycle Fedora is newer sometimes, Arch is newer other times.
Yes but it is still not the same. For me, Fedora hits the sweet spot between stable and cutting edge. Debian Sid goes too far imo. From their Wiki:
Sid is where packages go after they've been uploaded by their maintainer, and cleared for release by the FTP master. When packages have met certain criteria, they are automatically moved from Sid to the current "testing" repository. The "Unstable" repository is updated every 6 hours.
Sid exclusively gets security updates through its package maintainers. The Debian Security Team only maintains security updates for the current "stable" release.
So, that is not appealing to me, while Fedora KDE is. But the fact that we can be so nuanced in our choice criteria is why I love Linux.
Haven’t verified myself but I have an Intel gpu and have heard Fedora plays nicer with that. Debian was actually the very first distro I tried and something happened that borked my DE only a few days in (my fault no doubt and wouldn’t be an issue today) and that’s what drove me into Ubuntu.
Then landed on Fedora KDE after I got my Intel gpu and was looking into which distros had no snaps and good Intel gpu support.
I haven’t had any issues with rpm but that’s just my workstation so it’s all basic stuff and not too many. I do use apt/ubuntu server LTS for my servers.
Computer science professors like Ubuntu, little ones on Reddit like to btw for lolz.
It sounds more like you don't understand much about operating systems tbh, but heard that Arch was for cool people on the socials.
There is a reason the best computers on earth, and even stuff in space, run Ubuntu...and it's not because executing Archstrap from the Ubuntu iso is too hard.
Your post makes it clear that you don't understand much about operating systems. I'm not knocking Ubuntu at all, nor am I saying Arch is better either. But your basis for criticism is ridiculous.
You can't even do a partial upgrade, it's x86_64 only, and few support it. Most major projects tend to target apt/debian based systems as basic.
apt and dnf the stuff governments, war machines, industry and space travel are made of.
Arch runs on a double read only root fs on the steam deck for wee guys that wanna pretend they are shooting baddies...the only real world application I'm aware of is literally a toy.
Maybe we're just not aligned with what power user means. To me, a power user is OS agnostic. You can be a power user of any system as it's in comparison to regular users of that system.
Allan McCrae I would say is an Arch Linux power user, he can use pacman as most mere mortals like myself would apt, dnf or portage.
Arch also define a user as someone that's contributing to the system....I think that's why BTW'ers exist, a new category for an Arch user that doesn't fit the description of an Arch user on the 'About Arch Linux' info page....a consumer that just takes what they are given when they are given it.
I remember back in the late 90's and early 00's when MS was pushing Win2k that they got bashed pretty hard for all their services running on Linux. They were touting how great Win2K server was but they refused to use it themselves.
Assuming a high end gpu and CPU are part of the hardware, and it has sufficient hard drive space and ram..... Probably?
I don't know why you would go through all the effort of installing steam in a datacenter just to showcase your supercomputer running Crysis in WINE on Azure hardware though. Outside of doing a nerd comedy bit.
You need to read and understand the whole sentence. Or you need to go into politics with that skill of ripping parts of sentences out of context. Or into law.
top500 only lists setups that submit their results to specific benchmarks. Truly, the most powerful ones are not interested in such publicity. But they still run Linux! :)
Knowing how powerful the computer is that they use to simulate nukes isn't really sensitive information. The ones used by the NSA/CIA and the like for hoovering up and analysing global communications would be, we definitely wouldn't be getting the full story on those if at all.
Former Cray employee here. Without a doubt some of the most powerful systems on the planet are out there in the Utah data center that are not on the list. They are used by three letter agencies for processing intelligence data.
I personally know some of the people who built and administered them.
Fellow HPC engineer here. I agree. For example, a few years ago NSA paid HPE something like 5 billion dollars for a 5 year HPC contract. Considering that El Capitan and Frontier cost about $600mm each, it's obvious the three letter agencies have some pretty serious compute hidden away.
Even if they haven't worked on such a cluster themselves, pretty much everyone in the industry knows people who have, or have stories about things like "Oh, huh, this data center has 'missing' floor space and seemingly way more power/cooling than necessary... hmm..."
Got to imagine there’s a few out there that are kept under wraps, just like there’s military bases you can find on a map, and then those you can’t. They both sensitive things, it’s just you can’t hide them all.
AI training on private clouds. What else could it be? :)
The sensitivity of the application has nothing to do with the computational power. These nuclear research super computers are just a massive number of servers with high speed interconnected memory, cooperating to solve a problem. That's exactly what these global data centers are doing to create their models too, but they are orders of magnitude more powerful.
Tip, hardware is hardware. The difference is the software that they run. Each bigger and better is just built with more of the best(?) latest hardware.
If you filter by OS family, you’ll be able to see that Windows has only been on the list with one or two systems more than a decade ago. It has been an all Linux list for 8 years.
I formulated my question wrongly. Are all of them run by Microsoft? The post is what it is, microsoft build their most powerful computer, and it happens to run on ubuntu. It did not say it is the fastest on the planet.
It's impressive how Ubuntu is the absolutely more used distro in absolutely all use cases for Linux, inside and outside the ecosystem, I actually like this.
They use Ubuntu because it's the goto OS for Nvidia.
When you deals with this kind of supercomputing stuff, Nvidia doc (mellanox, but also HPC/AI GPU) are written for Ubuntu, but you can use other Linux os just fine (most of the time REHL, because support)
Mostly because of enterprise-style support of long-term releases, yeah. It's why distros like RHEL, Ubuntu, SLES, and the RHEL-compatible clones are quite popular in corporate spaces.
True. Thus the "embrace, extend, extinguish" mantra. Also their hostile corporate takeovers like when they killed Nokia for example.
(They got a "former" Microsoft executive hired on as CEO of Nokia who then immediately demanded that they switch Nokia phones to using Windows CE as OS, with obvious results.)
Microsoft does contribute to the Linux kernel; but even putting that aside, that’s irrelevant though; there’s a reason it’s Microsoft that’s the 2nd biggest cloud vendor, and not say Ubuntu or Redhat or whatever.
Tell me how have you benefited or anyone from Microsofts contributions to the Linux Kernel?
Their contributions are exclusively to make hypervisor work better on azure so that they can make trillions from Linux users and corporations when they use Azure cloud.
Never have. Gates was never a computer genius, he's just another soulless POS who stole someone else's idea, repackaged it, and rammed it down our throats by using every dirty trick in the book to make his bloated turd the standard desktop OS.
Might want to go read up on how good a programmer he was, examples including the algorithm he developed for pancake sorting. He was a brilliant programmer.
i think all of them run on linux
edit:
i remember correctly, accordingly to wikipedia all 500 run on linux
https://www.top500.org/statistics/details/osfam/1/
Linux has had 100% of the Top500 since Nov 2017.
Huh, I could swear at least a few would run BSD or AIX. You learn something new every day.
I guess it dropped off the list.
"The last non-Linux computers on the list – the two AIX ones – running on POWER7 (in July 2017 ranked 494th and 495th,[78] originally 86th and 85th), dropped off the list in November 2017."
It is a constantly changing field.
There used to be, but they've dropped off the list.
It is only the top500 after all.
I’m guessing more niche systems like BSD underperform compared to Linux, simply because of how much more dev hours go into improving Linux. It’s not a performance gap that most users would notice, but for companies building supercomputers or operating datacenters, those fractions of a watt and/or second add up fast.
I think this is also because of the hardware support. Nvidia and AMD support Linux drivers. I don’t think there is the same support of BSD.
I didn’t even think of that but it’s absolutely the case. I imagine it’s also a big feedback loop, where companies contribute more to tech they use, thus making it more suited to their use case, thus they use it more, and so on.
At last count I think 100% of the top500 list uses Linux.
Ubuntu happens to be the most popular Linux distro, the other big one used in data centers is RHEL/Fedora, and SUSE is also popular especially in Europe.
Ubuntu might be popular on desktop, but it is not dominant on supercomputers, select category "Operating system" in: https://www.top500.org/statistics/list/
is generic Linux
HPE Cray OS
CentOS
Red Hat Enterprise Linux
Ubuntu 22.04
Red Hat Enterprise Linux (possibly different release?)
Wait.
No Manjaro?!?! /s
Seems odd to go Ubuntu rather than Debian.
Paid, professional support. Debian is great but it’s still a volunteer project.
I think MAAS was easier to setup and configure than FAI to do unattended install of clusters, so if you prefer debian-like then ubuntu might be better.
HPC clusters usually run only the basic software from the distro anyway and everything is recompiled manually, so it doesn't matter much which distro are you using, and support doesn't matter either because you don't use much of the distribution anyway.
"Professional", so far it has been as bad as SUSE, meaning non existent.
The most popular distribution in data centers is RHEL-like, while Ubuntu is popular on PCs.
I don’t think this is knowable, but it would also depend how you count. AWS uses their own variant but it is based on Fedora etc.
In other words, RHEL-like. Fedora is RHEL-like; read the project documentation, it's one of the RHEL development phases.
cPanel, one of the largest hosting control panels, only runs on CloudLinux, which is a RHEL clone (the free version of CloudLinux is AlmaLinux).
How can you say it's impossible to know? What about scraping fingerprints from web servers, FTP, SSH, and email protocols? It's 2025, bro. I think Shodan is already 20 years old...
Becuase it’s not tracked.
From my experience, Ubuntu is the most frequently deployed in data centers and cloud environments. I checked two popular AI's, they agree.
Yes
Not very surprising. MS has been a big contributor to the Linux kernel and their cloud platform is highly dependent on a Linux based infrastructure.
Linus Torvalds made an interesting comment recently when he appeared on LTT, it was something like:
Its kind of funny how Linux is now a big money maker for Microsoft's Cloud division.
IIRC its even better than that - Microsoft makes far more money from Linux, than it does from Windows.
Yep. As Azure revenue has grown and is now several times larger than Windows revenue, and considering the majority of Azure runs on Linux, MS's most essential business has become Linux.
That’s not true. Azure runs on Azure Host OS, a custom Windows Server configuration. Many Azure IaaS clients however run Linux.
Edit: LOL, the downvotes indicate that true believers don't like to hear the truth. Here it is from the horse's mouth: I often get asked which OS and hypervisor are used by our Azure Cloud hosts. Here is the answer: : r/AZURE
they shovel shit to others (windows) doesnt mean they eat it themselves
I assume it's because building a whole new OS just for datacenters costs money, probably requires a lot of refactoring Windows to do something like server core, and might be a net loss of income if no one uses it.
Offer Linux and Microsoft basically just has to maintain the vm infrastructure and hardware, and they don't have to include licensing fees in the balance sheets.
The software environment is the reason everyone uses Linux server-side. Porting and maintaining the code environment for a data center is too expensive.
It's their own proprietary software... So no.
I mean if your Linux server fucks up you can usually Google your way out of it. If my windows server fucks up I'm hoping i can reimage with a recent snapshot because that shit is not shelf stable
the reason wsl became a thing is that too many ms devs were running linux vm's to develop things for microsoft because programming in windows is a painful experience
agreed, even setting up g++ in windows was a nghtmare compared to linux
sudo apt install gcc
vs
instal msys2 get mingw add to system path
Sloppy quote is no quote. Was it in the Youtube clip?
Yep. 23:23
6.19 actually even adds support for linux to be the domu equivalent on hyper-v so their Azure boxes don't have to run Windows at all.
Microsoft has their own Linux distribution for a while now.
Surprising that they chose Ubuntu and not something like plain Debian.
El Capitan the fastest on the top500 list also runs Linux. Special version of RHEL (Red Hat) for HPC.
Yep, it's TOSS), basically RHEL with a custom kernel and a bunch of extra packages.
Installed for 2 years and only dropped from 3 to 5.
HPC just doesn't seem to be seeing the investment it used to.
That's awesome! Guess we should all run Ubuntu now? 😆
I do. 😂
Believe it or not, jail
Right to jail.
I'm thorn between Ubuntu and Fedora (because Linus uses it lol).
Linus is... classic, and has specific requirements. While he's obviously the Linux god, his choice of distro is largely irrelevant. He has even said that the distro doesn't really matter.
I like Fedora over Ubuntu because I don’t like being pushed into snaps so aggressively.
I don't have snaps installed, all I needed to do was choose the minimal install option during Kubuntu installation, this is enough, it won't install snap or any snaps
Sure, but the fact that I would have to go with a minimal installation then do heavy configuration afterwards is enough for me to just go with Fedora KDE. With my setup and needs, Fedora KDE is the one that “just works”, and that’s what I’m after.
I do use Ubuntu server for my home server stuff though, because that’s all docker containers anyway.
Debian?
A lot of development happens on Fedora and it gets driver updates a lot quicker then with Debian.
Fedora is essentially on par with Arch when it comes to "latestness" of the graphics stack. Depending on where it is in its release cycle Fedora is newer sometimes, Arch is newer other times.
You assume use of server grade too-stable Debian. There is Debian Sid (which I use) and it's new and shiny.
apt-cache policy linux-image-amd64 linux-image-amd64: Installed: 6.17.9-1 Candidate: 6.17.9-1 Version table: 6.18~rc7-1~exp1 1 1 http://debian.otenet.gr/debian experimental/main amd64 Packages 6.17.11-1 800 800 http://debian.otenet.gr/debian sid/main amd64 PackagesYes but it is still not the same. For me, Fedora hits the sweet spot between stable and cutting edge. Debian Sid goes too far imo. From their Wiki:
So, that is not appealing to me, while Fedora KDE is. But the fact that we can be so nuanced in our choice criteria is why I love Linux.
Haven’t verified myself but I have an Intel gpu and have heard Fedora plays nicer with that. Debian was actually the very first distro I tried and something happened that borked my DE only a few days in (my fault no doubt and wouldn’t be an issue today) and that’s what drove me into Ubuntu.
Then landed on Fedora KDE after I got my Intel gpu and was looking into which distros had no snaps and good Intel gpu support.
I don't like snaps so I keep them disabled which is easy to do. I don't use RPM based distros, none, they're too problematic.
I haven’t had any issues with rpm but that’s just my workstation so it’s all basic stuff and not too many. I do use apt/ubuntu server LTS for my servers.
You can give a try to mint as well.
I think Fedora is much better. Ubuntu drives me nuts.
No, Ubuntu's more 'power user' stuff ime.
For the average pleb using a workstation to shitpost on Reddit, even something as basic as Arch can manage that just fine.
You must be a troll if you're saying Ubuntu is for power user stuff, but Arch is basic by comparison.
Just my experience.
Computer science professors like Ubuntu, little ones on Reddit like to btw for lolz.
It sounds more like you don't understand much about operating systems tbh, but heard that Arch was for cool people on the socials.
There is a reason the best computers on earth, and even stuff in space, run Ubuntu...and it's not because executing Archstrap from the Ubuntu iso is too hard.
Ironic.
Your post makes it clear that you don't understand much about operating systems. I'm not knocking Ubuntu at all, nor am I saying Arch is better either. But your basis for criticism is ridiculous.
For what it's worth, I use neither.
Arch is a toy ime.
You can't even do a partial upgrade, it's x86_64 only, and few support it. Most major projects tend to target apt/debian based systems as basic.
apt and dnf the stuff governments, war machines, industry and space travel are made of.
Arch runs on a double read only root fs on the steam deck for wee guys that wanna pretend they are shooting baddies...the only real world application I'm aware of is literally a toy.
You can do partial upgrades, it's just not supported. Yes, it's x86_64 only.
Yes, Debian/Ubuntu are the most used, that was never in debate. You said power users, and you haven't made a point to support that.
Your steam deck point is irrelevant.
Powering global warfare, banking, industry, microsoft, space etc is power to me.
The local uni computer science lab are power users ime.
Where does Arch btw fit in here?
Gentoo or T2SDE are power use stuff yeah...but Arch makes no sense to me.
The wiki and aur more a collection of idiot sheets for people that don't wanna RTFM, hence popular on Reddit and r/unixporn kinda world.
What features would you use to class btw as a power user operating system?
Maybe we're just not aligned with what power user means. To me, a power user is OS agnostic. You can be a power user of any system as it's in comparison to regular users of that system.
Well, yeah.
Allan McCrae I would say is an Arch Linux power user, he can use pacman as most mere mortals like myself would apt, dnf or portage.
Arch also define a user as someone that's contributing to the system....I think that's why BTW'ers exist, a new category for an Arch user that doesn't fit the description of an Arch user on the 'About Arch Linux' info page....a consumer that just takes what they are given when they are given it.
I remember back in the late 90's and early 00's when MS was pushing Win2k that they got bashed pretty hard for all their services running on Linux. They were touting how great Win2K server was but they refused to use it themselves.
It was a UNIX, particularly XENIX, which wasn't very good but ran on 386s.
I think the Windows Server license price for such many cores are too high even for Microsoft /s
Can this machine run Crysis?
Yes, how many instances do you need?
Assuming a high end gpu and CPU are part of the hardware, and it has sufficient hard drive space and ram..... Probably?
I don't know why you would go through all the effort of installing steam in a datacenter just to showcase your supercomputer running Crysis in WINE on Azure hardware though. Outside of doing a nerd comedy bit.
Linux is just superior for this
It has never been in first place on the top500 list.
It says built and operated by Microsoft, which is not much to say…
You need to read and understand the whole sentence. Or you need to go into politics with that skill of ripping parts of sentences out of context. Or into law.
top500 only lists setups that submit their results to specific benchmarks. Truly, the most powerful ones are not interested in such publicity. But they still run Linux! :)
The USG submits systems they do nuclear weapons research with. idk what you’re doing that more sensitive than that.
Knowing how powerful the computer is that they use to simulate nukes isn't really sensitive information. The ones used by the NSA/CIA and the like for hoovering up and analysing global communications would be, we definitely wouldn't be getting the full story on those if at all.
Former Cray employee here. Without a doubt some of the most powerful systems on the planet are out there in the Utah data center that are not on the list. They are used by three letter agencies for processing intelligence data.
I personally know some of the people who built and administered them.
Fellow HPC engineer here. I agree. For example, a few years ago NSA paid HPE something like 5 billion dollars for a 5 year HPC contract. Considering that El Capitan and Frontier cost about $600mm each, it's obvious the three letter agencies have some pretty serious compute hidden away.
Even if they haven't worked on such a cluster themselves, pretty much everyone in the industry knows people who have, or have stories about things like "Oh, huh, this data center has 'missing' floor space and seemingly way more power/cooling than necessary... hmm..."
Got to imagine there’s a few out there that are kept under wraps, just like there’s military bases you can find on a map, and then those you can’t. They both sensitive things, it’s just you can’t hide them all.
Hiding them all would make people more suspicious, and letting people in on some of the stuff behind the curtain keeps most from looking any further.
AI training on private clouds. What else could it be? :)
The sensitivity of the application has nothing to do with the computational power. These nuclear research super computers are just a massive number of servers with high speed interconnected memory, cooperating to solve a problem. That's exactly what these global data centers are doing to create their models too, but they are orders of magnitude more powerful.
source? and specifically, source that these datacenters are utilizing high-speed interconnect at scales larger than the top500?
Tip, hardware is hardware. The difference is the software that they run. Each bigger and better is just built with more of the best(?) latest hardware.
to a point, maybe, but faster interconnects and better wafers are constantly being developed, and a lot of the top stuff is more bespoke than CotS.
those benchmarks take up too many resources :P
Reading is hard.
My best tomato soup isn't in any top list, but it's still my best tomato soup.
Do they all run Windows?
100% of the top 500 most powerful supercomputers have run Linux since 2017.
https://top500.org/statistics/overtime/
If you filter by OS family, you’ll be able to see that Windows has only been on the list with one or two systems more than a decade ago. It has been an all Linux list for 8 years.
I formulated my question wrongly. Are all of them run by Microsoft? The post is what it is, microsoft build their most powerful computer, and it happens to run on ubuntu. It did not say it is the fastest on the planet.
Should have been "Microsoft's most powerful supercomputer runs Ubuntu"
Or "You won't believe what Microsoft just did to Linux!". Gotta get those clicks.
It's impressive how Ubuntu is the absolutely more used distro in absolutely all use cases for Linux, inside and outside the ecosystem, I actually like this.
They use Ubuntu because it's the goto OS for Nvidia. When you deals with this kind of supercomputing stuff, Nvidia doc (mellanox, but also HPC/AI GPU) are written for Ubuntu, but you can use other Linux os just fine (most of the time REHL, because support)
Yes and no. Handheld? SteamOs or Bazzite. And many desktop gamers are on Arch like distros, like a lot.
But developer space and commercial and stuff yeah most likely Ubuntu.
Mostly because of enterprise-style support of long-term releases, yeah. It's why distros like RHEL, Ubuntu, SLES, and the RHEL-compatible clones are quite popular in corporate spaces.
And enterprise is the vast majority of Linux users
Depends how you define what Linux is. Is it the kernel? How you interface with a device?
Android has billions of devices all running Linux.
You have embedded routers, switches, vacuum cleaners, smart fridges.
All the servers in the world serving us Reddit and other websites.
My pixel phone has a full terminal now to run Linux GUI apps built in to standard stock Rom. It's getting as Linux as it gets on Android even.
Microsoft knows nothing about servers or supercomputers.
Since Windows 2000 they backstab IBM and got the heart of IBM OS/2.
And then backstabbed Sybase and got MS SQL Server.
They have no original work.
True. Thus the "embrace, extend, extinguish" mantra. Also their hostile corporate takeovers like when they killed Nokia for example.
(They got a "former" Microsoft executive hired on as CEO of Nokia who then immediately demanded that they switch Nokia phones to using Windows CE as OS, with obvious results.)
Seeing how they are the 2nd largest cloud provider on the planet that is a very odd thing to say.
Oh Azure cloud runs on Linux, made not by Microsoft.
Microsoft does contribute to the Linux kernel; but even putting that aside, that’s irrelevant though; there’s a reason it’s Microsoft that’s the 2nd biggest cloud vendor, and not say Ubuntu or Redhat or whatever.
Tell me how have you benefited or anyone from Microsofts contributions to the Linux Kernel?
Their contributions are exclusively to make hypervisor work better on azure so that they can make trillions from Linux users and corporations when they use Azure cloud.
What a ridiculous claim. Have you not heard of Azure?
Never have. Gates was never a computer genius, he's just another soulless POS who stole someone else's idea, repackaged it, and rammed it down our throats by using every dirty trick in the book to make his bloated turd the standard desktop OS.
Absolute load of bullshit.
Gates was a genius programmer.
There's plenty to criticise Bill Gates for without resorting to outright bullshit lies.
Programmer yes. Genius no.
Might want to go read up on how good a programmer he was, examples including the algorithm he developed for pancake sorting. He was a brilliant programmer.
They don't want to deal with shitty system threatening updates and plug the privacy leaks of their own os obviously
But why Ubuntu 22.04?
Microsoft: Windows is unsafe trash. 🤷♂️
Microsoft Linux ;-)
Of course it does.
Only Linux is modular enough to handle this without having to be written from scratch
It's more than a decade since any machine in the top500 runs linux.
Didn't know about this. It's so ironic. Microsucks.
WOW! So they only needed half the power of the hardware?
JUST KIDDING NERDS
i dont have a super computer, i have a laptop. this is irrelevant for desktop linux