| News | Features | Interviews |
| Blog | Contact | Editorials |
| Intel will not support Linux on its Clover Trail processors |
| By Thom Holwerda on 2012-09-14 22:30:10 |
| 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? |
|
| Comment by redshift |
| By redshift on 2012-09-14 23:08:50 |
|
I am not sure this actually prevents OEMs from building Clover Trail systems. It just means the OEM would have to take the burden of certifying compatibility. That compatibility would come slower if Intel is not cooperative with the linux community. If it is the result of a MS deal.... slowing down linux/android may be all MS hoped to accomplish. Now I suppose that Intel could add DRM that actively prevents linux from working on those chips. It seems like a poor plan for a chipmaker to actively limit their potential market.... even if MS dropped cash on your doorstep. Edited 2012-09-14 23:09 UTC |
 - Score: 2 |
| Comment by stabbyjones |
| By stabbyjones on 2012-09-14 23:10:05 |
|
Is it the 90's again? Proprietary software one again seeking to slow down free software just enough to keep the consumer annoyed. |
| - Score: 13 |
| Comment by phoudoin |
| By phoudoin on 2012-09-14 23:10:09 |
|
I guess, then, that this customer will provide no financial support to Clover Trail's Windows 8 plateform sales. This customer is designed to be free to choose his operating system. If ARM is a better choice, let's be it. I'm of no branch church. Edited 2012-09-14 23:13 UTC |
| - Score: 4 |
| Comment by ilovebeer |
| By ilovebeer on 2012-09-14 23:12:11 |
| This is absolutely not a regression what-so-ever. If Intel wants to produce a chip line specifically designed or intended for use with Windows 8, it has every right to do so. It has no affect on any of their other chips and there is zero evidence there's anything to panic over. Rather than attempting to spread FUD, how about "we" look at this from a sensible standpoint. Or would that be asking too much? |
| - Score: -1 |
| RE: Comment by redshift |
| By phoudoin on 2012-09-14 23:12:43 |
| A poor plan and, if it's an hidden exclusive deal, maybe also an illegal one. |
| - Score: 5 |
| RE: Comment by ilovebeer |
| By JoeBuck on 2012-09-14 23:27:27 |
|
Not always. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyi...) |
| - Score: 4 |
| Read the article dammit |
| By Gullible Jones on 2012-09-14 23:27:43 |
|
The CPU will have advanced power-saving features that Windows 8 will support, but which Linux currently does not support. Until support for those features is implemented on Linux, Linux support for the CPU will not be very good to say the least. (Frankly I have no problem with that... Yet. My opinion may change as further news comes in.) Now if they have the chip hard-wired to choke on anything that looks like Linux kernel, that would be unfair. But it really doesn't look to me like that's what's going on. Edit: sorry, read the article but not Thom's comments. My take right now is that this may be ignorance on part of the marketing guys. I won't rule out the possibility that Intel deliberately broke Linux support, but it strikes me as unlikely. Edit 2: Oh... Hurray irony. Edited 2012-09-14 23:36 UTC |
| - Score: 3 |
| RE: Comment by ilovebeer |
| By TechGeek on 2012-09-14 23:36:49 |
| Yes, lets look at this from a sensible standpoint. Intel has a monopoly on chips in the x86 market. Microsoft has a monopoly on OS's in the x86 market. All anti trust problems I am aware of have specifically targeted the x86 marketplace. Now the main CPU maker is making a CPU that only works with the main OS. How could anyone possibly have any concerns around that fact? |
| - Score: 8 |
| ... |
| By Hiev on 2012-09-14 23:51:15 |
| Blasphemy! |
| - Score: 1 |
| RE[2]: Comment by stabbyjones |
| By winter skies on 2012-09-14 23:52:36 |
|
> Be careful with your proprietary software bashing. The world would be much worse off if proprietary systems and software disappeared. I hope you realize that, and then realize the grim reality of "be careful what you wish for" the all-software-should-be-free bible thumpers readily ignore. Whoa, let's be careful with proprietary software bashing or we could cause society grat trouble! Now "the world would be much worse" is an assumption you must be very insightful - almost omniscient - to make, as it's quite a demanding task to guess how a world without proprietary software would be. Anyway that hypoetical world has absolutely nothing to do with the topic here. It's so far-fetched you must have felt at least on the edge of bad faith writing your comment. Nobody would freakin ever complain about proprietary software if there wasn't the suspicion - as in this case - that someone's trying to compete outside the boundaries of what's legitimate this way damaging other entities. What the heck has this to do with hating proprietary software? All players should just play fair, but maybe that's outside the scope for some of them. The details aren't known yet, but I would get very annoyed by a hypotetical company making it more difficult for an open source OS to support a new processor. It sounds like a steer from the usual Intel policy and as such it does not seem to be happening just by chance. If you think this shows how bad free software supporters are (the vast majority of which I'm sure don't want proprietary software to disappear but just like having more choice and the possibility to know what the code they're using really does) feel free to voice your personal reality, but be aware it sounds quite crazy. |
| - Score: 9 |
| News | Features | Interviews |
| Blog | Contact | Editorials |