Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 14th Sep 2012 22:30 UTC
Intel You'd think this sort of stuff belonged to the past - but no. Apparently, Microsoft is afraid of Android on its Windows 8 tablets, because Intel has just announced that it will provide no support for Linux on its clover Trail processors. Supposedly, this chip is "designed for Windows 8". What?
Thread beginning with comment 535144
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Comment by redshift
by bassbeast on Sat 15th Sep 2012 02:28 UTC in reply to "Comment by redshift"
bassbeast
Member since:
2007-11-11

Its more likely it doesn't have a thing to do with MS and has everything to do with IP. Its pretty well known that Intel has been using PowerVR IGPs in many of its mobile processors and PowerVR really couldn't care less about Linux support.

So what is Intel supposed to do? The IGPs they have in the core series will blow the power budget, their other in house IGP suck, so that pretty much leaves the PowerVR team.

If Linux would have gotten more than 1% of the market this wouldn't have happened, but getting the devs on the same page is like herding cats so give it up, Intel had to make a call and take the best they could get that would support the most consumers. After all its not like they could call up Nvidia after they shafted them out of the IGP business could they?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by redshift
by johnboyholmes on Sat 15th Sep 2012 03:38 in reply to "RE: Comment by redshift"
johnboyholmes Member since:
2005-11-16

Really, Android and Linux Servers only have a 1% market share. TIL

Reply Parent Score: 8

RE[3]: Comment by redshift
by bassbeast on Sat 15th Sep 2012 06:32 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by redshift"
bassbeast Member since:
2007-11-11

This is the classic FOSSies move called "moving the goalposts" and is frankly bull.

Android is a proprietary OS owned by Google, it has as much to do with FOSS as OSX, and servers? Not gonna be running Atom chips, especially not one designed for tablets and netbooks.

So just to be clear we are not talking about your router, cell phone, or the cluster at CERN, okay? Geez what is it with you guys acting like religious whackos and refusing to stay on topic? And if you would like a link to share to back me up? All you had to do is ask..

http://www.netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qp...

If you will kindly look at the actual figures you'll see WinVista, the most HATED MS OS since WinME, has FIVE times the share of Linux. In fact up until last quarter JavaME actually had you beat by .04%.

So I'm sorry but why should Intel care about an OS that has 1.05% share in the consumer market, the market this chip is aimed at? Answer they shouldn't, because obviously not enough people buy your product to make it worth caring about.

But don't blame me, I'm just stating facts. if you don't like it quit letting the devs get away with murder and demand a better product. that's how the free market works you know, if you offer a good product you do good, a bad product does bad. Even MS isn't immune to that, see Vista.

Reply Parent Score: -1

RE[2]: Comment by redshift
by saso on Sat 15th Sep 2012 10:19 in reply to "RE: Comment by redshift"
saso Member since:
2007-04-18

Its more likely it doesn't have a thing to do with MS and has everything to do with IP. Its pretty well known that Intel has been using PowerVR IGPs in many of its mobile processors and PowerVR really couldn't care less about Linux support.


Let's be clear, this is pure unsupported conjecture. (N.B. not agreeing with you doesn't mean I agree with Thom.)

So what is Intel supposed to do? The IGPs they have in the core series will blow the power budget, their other in house IGP suck, so that pretty much leaves the PowerVR team.


How about at least putting out a binary blob driver, like lots of vendors do? (nVidia, AMD, Broadcom, etc.) This argument has been shown to be wrong before.

If Linux would have gotten more than 1% of the market this wouldn't have happened,


You do realize that the non-Apple tablet market (for which this chip is almost certainly targeted) is about 100% Android (and thus Linux)? Windows 8 has 0% of the market. Thus, from a pure business perspective (even accepting your above arguments about IGPs), it makes next to no sense at all to target a non-existent market with a new product, unless there are other motives behind it as well (such as an exclusivity deal with Microsoft). Just to drive this point home a bit better, let's quote the linked article on the The Inquirer:

As Intel is pushing Clover Trail into tablets, a category of devices that is dominated by Linux based Android and the Unix BSD based IOS, the firm said it will not support Linux on Clover Trail.


Is this absolute 100% proof that Intel and Microsoft have an exclusivity deal? No. But it makes it extremely likely, to the point of being beyond a reasonable doubt.

Edited 2012-09-15 10:22 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 8

RE[3]: Comment by redshift
by bert64 on Tue 18th Sep 2012 12:40 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by redshift"
bert64 Member since:
2007-04-23

An x86 port of Android would be a red headed stepchild...

Best case it would be no worse than the more common ARM devices, it would run the same platform neutral or open source apps, with equivalent performance and battery life.

Worst case...

It won't run a large number of existing Android apps which are closed source and only compiled for ARM.
It will use more power than competing ARM designs, and therefore have inferior battery life.


An x86 windows tablet on the other hand, does offer benefits over an arm based windows tablet (availability of existing programs, albeit program unsuitable for use on a tablet ui)... The windows tablets will be different enough to the android tablets to mask any efficiency differences, and the x86 tablets will be sufficiently better than the crippled arm version of windows that many people will be happy to sacrifice some battery life for a massively superior device.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by redshift
by blitze on Sat 15th Sep 2012 23:07 in reply to "RE: Comment by redshift"
blitze Member since:
2006-09-15

Love your analogy of herding cats to try bringing linux developers on the same page. Thing is, with cats, you don't herd, you call them to you. I'm sure this approach could also work with developers.
Just a tip from one who breeds Burmese Cats ;)

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Comment by redshift
by Laurence on Sun 16th Sep 2012 15:17 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by redshift"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

Love your analogy of herding cats to try bringing linux developers on the same page. Thing is, with cats, you don't herd, you call them to you. I'm sure this approach could also work with developers.
Just a tip from one who breeds Burmese Cats ;)

I can't speak for all developers, but I work for more than just a saucer or milk - my rates are usually catnip and heavy petting.

Reply Parent Score: 3