You can't get an ARM one though, only X86, which is mostly the point.

Most people don't care about nominal difference in x86 vs arm. They care about cost, performance, efficiency, noise etc. Which applications run on the machine does matter.

The article never explained why the author wanted an ARM setup. I can only consider this a spiritual thing, just like how the author avoids Debian without providing any concrete explanations.

▲

CharlesW 4 hours ago | parent [-]

The usual reason to prefer ARM is efficiency, and the author's mention of replacing "power-hungry HPE towers" seeems to support that as a primary motivating factor.

	▲	inventor7777 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		True. But as detailed in the Jeff Geerling article that was shared here in the comments, it has (at least at the moment) a rather high idle power draw, which seems to negate that, especially over time.

▲

inventor7777 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

True. However, I've always noticed that ARM has less Linux support than x86, and the main benefits ARM is known for are typically performance/watt, running cooler, and less legacy support.

Since this server seems to have pretty average performance/watt and cooling, I can't really see much advantage to ARM here, at least for typical server use cases.

Unless you're doing ARM development, but I feel like a Pi 4/5 is better for basic development.

	▲	cromka 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Linux support for ARM is inferior for end users of desktop 3rd party software. Everything else is provided by the repos. I doubt this person runs Signal or Spotify on those servers.