You may not be able to get Mathematica for Linux, but there are other, similar programs.
There are plenty of good compilers for Linux. I have alphas and I use Compaq's compilers. For Intel machines, I own good compilers from the Portland Group (PGI).
Your criticism would be better if you had more concrete points which were correct. Elsewise you just like someone who is criticizing something he doesn't understand.
Compaq already has a compiler. It's very inexpensive to port it to a new OS; they even already had ELF from another project. It would be much more expensive for them to play with the gcc back-end.
FSL runs their RUC model globally with a 40km resolution today. They expect to run RUC globally with a 10km resolution on the new system. However, there is a lot of weather that wants even finer resolutions.
The claim is that the egcs intermediate representation isn't powerful enough to do lots of optimizations that are standard in the GEM compiler. I believe that the EGCS people are aware of this and are thinking about it.
The advantage is that it produces much faster code. My experience with it has been extremely positive. But what would I know, I only ran a few million lines of source through it...
The problem with requiring Outlook is that it isn't open source and doesn't run under Linux. Writing in to explain that no, it requires either Exchange or Outlook doesn't change the fact that this limitation sucks. Hopefully it will be relaxed in the future.
(And doesn't the Microsoft Exchange version cost $2999?)
He dealt with the human interest, but without any clue about the technology. Supercomputing has been around for decades. Repeating what the IBM press release says and adding extra, wrong details does not make good journalism.
Slashdot Mirror
The problems you cite have little to do with matrix algebra.
You may not be able to get Mathematica for Linux, but there are other, similar programs.
There are plenty of good compilers for Linux. I have alphas and I use Compaq's compilers. For Intel machines, I own good compilers from the Portland Group (PGI).
Your criticism would be better if you had more concrete points which were correct. Elsewise you just like someone who is criticizing something he doesn't understand.
Tru64's market today is on the Alpha. Compaq isn't dropping that. So no, they aren't walking away from the server market.
Compaq already has a compiler. It's very inexpensive to port it to a new OS; they even already had ELF from another project. It would be much more expensive for them to play with the gcc back-end.
FSL runs their RUC model globally with a 40km resolution today. They expect to run RUC globally with a 10km resolution on the new system. However, there is a lot of weather that wants even finer resolutions.
SMS doesn't distribute I/O to multiple nodes for a single job. But the bandwidth of a single I/O node is sufficient for FSL's needs.
You can't just "roll the optimizations" into GCC.
This is a traditional commercial compiler. If you just one one machine, and an old one at that, you aren't Compaq's target market.
The claim is that the egcs intermediate representation isn't powerful enough to do lots of optimizations that are standard in the GEM compiler. I believe that the EGCS people are aware of this and are thinking about it.
The advantage is that it produces much faster code. My experience with it has been extremely positive. But what would I know, I only ran a few million lines of source through it...
And there's always the Legion Project, which is the successor to research (Hydra) started in the late 1960s.
The problem with requiring Outlook is that it
isn't open source and doesn't run under Linux. Writing in to explain that no, it requires either Exchange or Outlook doesn't change the fact that
this limitation sucks. Hopefully it will be relaxed in the future.
(And doesn't the Microsoft Exchange version cost $2999?)
He dealt with the human interest, but without
any clue about the technology. Supercomputing
has been around for decades. Repeating what
the IBM press release says and adding extra,
wrong details does not make good journalism.