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 535154
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Comment by redshift
by bassbeast on Sat 15th Sep 2012 06:32 UTC 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[4]: Comment by redshift
by johnboyholmes on Sat 15th Sep 2012 07:28 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by redshift"
johnboyholmes Member since:
2005-11-16

I would not of disagreed with you if you had said Linux on the desktop but you blanket statement that Linux as a whole has 1% share is incorrect. Feel free to continue your rant below.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by redshift
by bassbeast on Sun 16th Sep 2012 20:16 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by redshift"
bassbeast Member since:
2007-11-11

Do we REALLY have to spell such things out when we are talking about CONSUMER chips now? Really? Since i got modded down by the groupthinkers i guess so.

But you show me ONE, just one mind you, company that offers Linux servers running Clovertrail and I'll be happy to retract, but since we are all supposed to be logical thinking adults here and the entire article is talking about a tablet chip I honestly didn't believe i had to put out that a consumer chip is not gonna target an OS that has 1.05% of the consumer market.

But YOU know and I know that it was really just moving the goalposts, C'mon, be honest. We see this in every single article that has anything to do with Linux desktops, we'll get "But Linux has server share" which has exactly diddly and squat to do with the topic at hand. This chip isn't aimed at servers, routers, or HPC, this is aimed at consumer devices and on X86 Linux has done VERY poorly, this isn't exactly earth shattering news here.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by redshift
by saso on Sat 15th Sep 2012 10:07 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by redshift"
saso Member since:
2007-04-18

Android is a proprietary OS owned by Google, it has as much to do with FOSS as OSX


This is a profoundly false statement. Android is available under a very liberal license with full source and all tools needed to build it. It's development model may be closed, but that doesn't mean that the finished product is proprietary. You could take Android and fork it today into a new OS. That's the very essence of being open-source.

The statement "owned by Google" is untrue as well. Nobody "owns" a piece of software, software isn't tangible goods. Rather, one owns the copyright to a piece of software. And even if take it that you meant that Google owns the copyright to Android, that's potentially untrue as well. Depending on how you define Android, the copyright is owned by a large group of people, starting from the Linux kernel, drivers, through lots of the userspace libraries, none of which were developed solely by Google (and thus they don't "own the copyright" to them, but only potentially to portions). The upper Android software stacks are almost exclusively Google-copyrighted, but as I pointed out above, these are available under a very liberal open-source license.

Reply Parent Score: 8

RE[4]: Comment by redshift
by Laurence on Sun 16th Sep 2012 15:11 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by redshift"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

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.

If only it was that easy to compile desktop figures, but sadly it's not. Windows figures are artificially inflated because it's nearly impossible to buy a laptop or pre-build PC without having Windows and nobody has any idea the extent of Linux installations out there.

The most we can do is form estimates based on user agent strings, Linux downloads and Windows sales, but even all that is error prone:
* user agent strings can be and often are faked
* user agent strings are only representative of the visitor base on that particular site - thus is biased towards the type of clientèle that site attracts (ie OSNews.com will have more Linux users than MSN.com)
* user agent strings don't take into account whether it's a personal computer (which can run anything the user wants) or a work computer (which often tends to be Windows PCs due to MS Office and Exchange compatibility)
* Not all Linux downloads are via distro.com or their mirrors (bit torrent et al are often encouraged)
* One Linux ISO could be used to set up an infinite number of PCs
* and I'd already touched on the Windows sales issues earlier.

So in short, arguing any kind of market figures as "fact" is just proving how little you really know about this subject.

Furthermore, I'd be more inclined to go with Thom's verdict: MS have already blocked Linux on many future ARM devices (secure boot UEFI), so this is a back-handed way of pushing Linux out of the portable x86 space as well as Redmond know full well that a public maneuver -such as the mandatory secure boot UEFI- would see Microsoft in trouble with the EU quicker than a whore drops her knickers.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by redshift
by bassbeast on Sun 16th Sep 2012 20:23 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by redshift"
bassbeast Member since:
2007-11-11

Really? Better tell Dell, System76, and a dozen other Linux OEMs they don't exist then.

And if you are talking retail? As an actual retailer who USED to sell Linux desktops I'll be happy to tell you why that is, because Linux devs destroy any chance by constantly fiddling with the internals. You see with web sales all sales are final, NO after sale support. this is the exact opposite of retail where if you don't offer at least basic support your sales dry up and blow away, and I can tell you that Linux drivers breaking every update made Linux cost me MORE than Windows by a long shot. At $35 an hour frankly it only takes ONE forum hunt because pulse puked on sound or the WiFi driver was totaled for it to make the $80 cost of Win 7 Home the better deal. This is only gonna get worse with Win 8 as its just $40 for Pro.

But hey, don't take my word for it, please look at this list of over 100 major show stopping bugs with links. If you'd like I'll be happy to post the original page from 3 years ago to let you compare and see how many of them still haven't been fixed after 3 years. Linux works on servers because admins get paid a high 5 figures to do nothing but fix the stuff the devs break, this is the complete opposite of the home market. Even one of the RH devs says the Linux desktop is suckage and the entire system is unsustainable, link provided below.

http://linuxfonts.narod.ru/why.linux.is.not.ready.for.the.desktop.c...

https://plus.google.com/109922199462633401279/posts/HgdeFDfRzNe

Reply Parent Score: 2