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?

  • TCB13@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
    1·
    1 year ago

    there’s usually no good reason to pay extra for x86 hardware especially since most of the intricacies are handled by AWS. (…) all those little pain points mentioned above that you’re “left to deal with” which isn’t cheap either. (but that doesn’t show up on the AWS bill, so management is happy to report cost savings)

    Exactly my point above when people start shouting about upgradability compatibility and whatnot.

    • mea_rah@lemmy.world
      2·
      1 year ago

      Yeah, I was saying "no reason" in the context of SAAS. Once the management falls on the end user, it's a different beast altogether.

      I think we're trying to say the same in a different way actually. 😅