We built out our company VDI with 8gb because "windows needs 4 and office needs 4".
Somehow.. somehow.. everyone needed an upgrade.
I haven't ordered anything less than 16 in 9 years. 8 is shit, 4... Throw that thing in the dumpster if you can't increase the RAM.
Yeah I considered buying a personal Mac a few times but when 8 gb of extra RAM is at the price it is on an already overpriced machine... I just can't justify it.
The joke is that the system requirements for Linux can be effectively nothing, but of course, some sort of processor is required. It’s hyperbole.
I think it's also relevant with Windows 10 nearing the end of support, meaning a lot of devices that "can't run windows 11" are "heading to the landfills" (according to some news articles)
Fact: If it can run Win10, it can run Win11.
Those limitations imposed by MS can be circumvented with Rufus.
I've successfully installed Win11 on a Core2Quad with 2GB of RAM... on a spinning drive.
My point was, it can be done.
That rig is currently running a dual boot Void/Win10 install. Sure, the Win10 install is slow AF (did I mention the spinning drive is IDE 😅), but I only use that if I have to and there is no other choice (software extremely tied to Windows and not even Wine can help). Also, I usually use LTSC editions (can't be bothered with debloating and it's officially supported by MS, so there are no hickups during updates and stuff like that) and that also helps a lot to be honest (regarding speed).
So, in general, if you only need Windows from time to time, yes, it is a viable option.
Sure it can be done, but no corporation in the world will do that and the extremely large population of people who simply don't care all that much about computers (and I don't mean that as an insult) won't do it either.
So effectively, a whole bunch of machines will get scrapped or their users won't get any updates. And knowing MS' history, they'll probably scare people into buying a new PC via pop-ups every week.
Yes, as much as I'd hate to admit it, that is true. I was just pointing out the fact that it can be done, for those that might not know that it can be done (a lot of dual booters out there, including myself).
It's a joke... Probably.
I don't have a confirmed case of Linux running without a traditional CPU, but I wouldn't bet $20.00 against it existing
There's plenty of devices out there that do some kind of computation and don't have anything we would recognize at a traditional CPU. Such devices are becoming rare, because CPUs are so dang cheap, now.
Most of those run binary compiled from custom C code or even directly from Assembly.
But, if someone was going to run an alternative program on one of those devices, there's a very good chance they would install Linux (heavily customized) on it first.
Source: I've completed parts of Linux from Scratch. It was eye opening to realize the places that a true Linux expert could get it to run. Every single part of Linux is truly optional, to someone who knows that they're doing.
Those are still CPUs. Microcontrollers have CPUs, and those are the smallest units that can actually run code in a meaningful way.
However, Linux needs an MMU as far as I know, so you won't see Ubuntu boot on an esp32, even though it does have a CPU.
Those are still CPUs. Microcontrollers have CPUs, and those are the smallest units that can actually run code in a meaningful way.
If the whole board is the CPU, we typically don't call it a CPU. (The C is for Central.) There's very few left, but there's still hardware out there, running code, that could be called CPU-less.
I do take your point that it's down to pendantic wording, at that point. Something very like a CPU, that most of us are going to just call a CPU, is going to be present.
However, Linux needs an MMU as far as I know, so you won't see Ubuntu boot on an esp32, even though it does have a CPU.
Yeah. There's certainly an argument to be made that whatever is left is not really the Linux Kernel anymore, after modifying it enough to run CPU-free. But I suppose it's still more fair to call it Linux, than not to, at that point.
Microcontrollers aren't "the whole board", following that definition, an SoC wouldn't have a CPU either.
MCs require support components. Clocks, power converters, level shifters, modem, etc. You'll hardly wire a barrel plug and a servo directly to a DIP (though that would be pretty cool).
but I wouldn't bet $20.00 against it existing
Good. Because if Linux can run on RV32I, then it can run on this.
Every single part of Linux is truly optional, to someone who knows that they're doing.
Today for shits and giggles I ran Xonotic as init process. It had trouble with hardware acceleration, so I ran simple bash script that mounted /proc and /sys and then launched xonotic instead.
It literally says "32 bit RISC-V homemade CPU out of discrete components".
I dont know how you would stretch the definition of cpu in form of discrete components but yea current processors also stray from the definition of a alu and a control unit and registers since people call the different cores cpus. But even a Mikrocontroller has a all that.
You need a cpu to run linux. If you just want to rin a "program" you can do that with logic gates and no alu or control unit but that would limit the form of your program to exactly that circuit.
Maybe Intel should boot using the embedded x86 in the chipset when the CPU dies in 13th/14th gen. CPU optional.
From what I've seen others post, he got silver because of his teammate. If his solo performance was used to score him, he'd've gotten gold.
You could probably run Linux on a binary abacus. https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bbinary_Abacus_002.jpg
