Linked by Jordan Spencer Cunningham on Fri 9th Oct 2009 21:12 UTC
Intel "Imad Sousou is the director of Intel's Open Source Technology Centre, which is behind the Moblin project aimed at providing optimized Linux technology for netbooks and mobile Internet devices. ZDNet Asia's sister site ZDNet UK caught up with Sousou at the Open Source In Mobile 09 event in Amsterdam last month to discuss the nature of Moblin and the hardware on which it will run." The interview also covers Intel's views on the netbook and MID market, Windows 7, ARM as a competitor, and Google's Chrome OS and how Intel is working with Google.
Thread beginning with comment 388809
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Yeah, right.
by jgagnon on Mon 12th Oct 2009 11:59 UTC in reply to "Yeah, right."
jgagnon
Member since:
2008-06-24

I think the point that was trying to be made is that the Internet, at least since the early 90's, has had ever increasing requirements. The "web" has had an ever increasing need for speed to display its contents. The early "pure text" Internet didn't require much of a computer, but if you tried to use an old Commodore 64 to browse the web today you'd be very disappointed, for instance.

While I'm sure Intel would love people to think exclusively "Intel x86" when they think PC, those days are over. These days, a PC refers to just about any sufficiently powerful, general purpose personal computer. Phones, PDA's, even MP3 players and other devices, are all becoming more and more like general purpose PC's.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Yeah, right.
by WereCatf on Mon 12th Oct 2009 12:17 in reply to "RE: Yeah, right."
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Interesting viewpoint, but he literally says "PC-compatible" etc. If he meant a general purpose personal computer with "PC" he wouldn't say "PC-compatible" as that'd be guaranteed; a personal computer is a personal computer, there is no standard to be compatible with.

Anyways, I do disagree with him. Sure, browsing the web nowadays requires a browser with Javascript, several kinds of plugins etc if you do anything more than just read text. And even if you did just read text you could still be required to have Javascript and Flash enabled (poor web page design, but it does happen).

Still, there is nothing platform-specific about HTML, Javascript etc, only the plugins themselves. That is a limitation caused by the plugin developers, not web itself, and it's a limitation easily overcome if any new platform suddenly gains enough audience.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Yeah, right.
by Laurence on Mon 12th Oct 2009 14:31 in reply to "RE: Yeah, right."
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

I think the point that was trying to be made is that the Internet, at least since the early 90's, has had ever increasing requirements. The "web" has had an ever increasing need for speed to display its contents. The early "pure text" Internet didn't require much of a computer, but if you tried to use an old Commodore 64 to browse the web today you'd be very disappointed, for instance.


I think he just wanted to promote the image of Intel as being the leading manufacturer of some kind of miracle CPU architecture that can perform tasks popular with Joe public better than any other architecture.

The reality of this is bullshit as:
* CPUs only crunch numbers thus it's the OS + user space tools that performs said tasks. Thus the only limitation of the Internet is what user space tools are installed.
* The Internet was intentionally built to be platform-independent. So the whole argument about it being tied into one OS with wrong - and, further more, the idea of the Internet being developed for one specific CPU architecture is absurd.


To expand on this point (and using your example), you CAN surf the net on a Commodore 64. In fact, there's a twitter client for the C64: http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/06/14/0218212
Theres a web browser and even a web server for the C64:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contiki#Features


The ironic thing is, if you want to talk about overall compatibility on your typical Intel-powered PC, then they're actually behind the market:
* Your typical Intel powered PC will run Windows, which only has a fraction of the Internet-dependant user-space tools pre-installed compared with Linux/BSD (eg whois command)
* Your typical Windows user will be running Internet Explorer, which is still lacking support for many HTML5 features (SVG anyone? Better install webkit then!)

In fact, you couldn't even argue that media-rich Internet we originally designed for PCs given the 1st graphical web-browser was written for NeXTStep and wasn't running on x86 CPUs.



So, in short, Imad Sousou's comments have about as much basis on reality as Lord of the Rings.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Yeah, right.
by jgagnon on Mon 12th Oct 2009 15:48 in reply to "RE[2]: Yeah, right."
jgagnon Member since:
2008-06-24

My point wasn't that it couldn't be done, it was that the experience would be, well, less than desirable. This post screen is roughly 12KB without any of the graphics. So, at best, you'd have an early Lynx style text-only browser, which means you wouldn't see things the way they were intended to be seen.

And that is where all of this is headed. The vast majority of web sites are made with "full featured" browsers in mind. In a very distant second place are the web sites made specifically for the mobile market (read: fewer features). So, until relatively recently, you pretty much had to deal with poorly formatted and/or incomplete web sites or surf from a device capable of displaying all of the content. The mobile devices (I'm referring to non-laptops, of course) are just now starting to catch up to a PC with full browsing capabilities.

We could argue all day whether that guy interviewed is really disillusioned enough to believe that using the Internet in any way requires an Intel PC. I do not believe he is that stupid. So I read his comments as a generalization that the bulk of Internet traffic is designed for "higher class" machines, full-featured PC's being included in this, regardless of which company made their CPU, chip set, or graphics card.

Reply Parent Score: 1