http://www.osnews.com/story/19651/Virtualization_Has_Come_a_Long_Way Exploring the Future of Computing en-us Copyright 2001-2009, David Adams adam+nospam@osnews.com Tue, 10 Nov 2009 09:59:08 GMT http://www.osnews.com/images/osnews.gif http://www.osnews.com http://osnews.com/thread?310391 http://osnews.com/thread?310391 That was pretty fluffy. "Visualization has hardware support these days, which I don't really quite understand, so I'll give you a really bad analogy". Fri, 18 Apr 2008 20:15:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (joshv) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?310520 http://osnews.com/thread?310520 That site has lost much of its credibility with me because they're systematically removing any mention of processor technologies that aren't x86.

For example, RickGeek had an article about modularity and I mentioned SoCs (system-on-chip) such as UltraSPARC T2 and the direction many RISC architectures such MIPS (Loongson 2G), ARM and PPC are taking.

Of course they removed those comments from the view of the world, because that would suit the wishes of their biggest sponsor Intel much better than stimulate some thorough discussions on the merits of various processor implementations.

Geek.com only publishes regurgitated Intel x86 press releases, so there isn't much left there for geeks and hackers that they couldn't find elsewhere such as on the RealWorld Tech forums.

I'm running GNU/Linux on all of these aformentioned architectures and do not have a significant bias towards any one of them.

Which is very unlike much of the press media that are not only heavily x86 biased (which isn't a problem for me) but in this case even denies the existence of anything that isn't x86, going as far as removing fairly and politely written comments from the world's view. Sun, 20 Apr 2008 01:20:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (psychicist) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?310579 http://osnews.com/thread?310579 Much worse than that. I posted a comment that pointed out the many errors in the article, including the fact the author couldn't even be bothered to understand that a hypervisor is a software layer, not the hardware support for that layer. They promptly deleted it; indeed, there are no comments posted to the article, and I doubt I was the only one who said "WTF?".

Incompetent, cowardly clowns...that means you in particular "RickGeek". If you can't be bothered to get the simple stuff right, quit writing. Sun, 20 Apr 2008 18:21:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (seefriek) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?310937 http://osnews.com/thread?310937 Agreed. This is a pretty lame article, and anyone who does not understand that a hypervisor is a software layer, not processor extensions should not be writing an article on virtualization. Ten seconds on wikipedia and anyone will know more than RickGeek. Tue, 22 Apr 2008 23:01:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (rexstuff) Comments