Linux is gaining ground. And, I don't think Intel is totally ignoring
Linux. So, some blame is being placed on the writers presenting their
articles! I thought they were supposed to be pro Linux. You know - hang
in there and all that... What'ya mean Linux desktop is dead? If we took
that attitude with everything, we wouldn't have any technology. If I had
these guys on a football team they would be on the bench.
Sridhar Dhanapalan wrote:
>
> This is proof that the Wintel Cartel lives on after the antitrust trial
> (where Intel testified against M$). After all these years, did you think that
> it would just roll-over and die? Of course not. Here, we have a symbiotic
> relationship. Both Intel chips and M$ apps have become ubiquitous standards
> on the desktop from helping each other. Now this arrangement is scaling both
> up into the server (Itanium and WinXP) and down into embedded devices
> (StrongARM and WinCE).
>
> GNU/Linux is a threat to Intel because of its portability. Anyone can compile
> GNU/Linux code to run on many other non-Intel hardware platforms, like those
> of IBM, Sun, HP and Compaq -- in other words, Intel's main competition.
> However, GNU/Linux is gaining ground on the server, and Intel realise that
> they'd be idiots to oppose it at the high-end. Corporates are more likely to
> switch to another OS than an ordinary home user (who is probably still trying
> to find the "any key").
>
> On the desktop, Intel are faced with a rejuvenated Apple, employing
> Motorola's version of the PowerPC design. Remember the whole "CISC vs RISC"
> war of the early- to mid- 1990s? Apple chips were actually faster than Intel
> ones, but what saved Intel was their ability to turn MegaHertz into a
> commodity (i.e. Intel had more MHz per processor, fooling people into
> believing that their systems were quicker) and the fact that Windows ran on
> x86.
>
> Now Intel are also faced with competition on their own turf, in the guise of
> AMD and Transmeta (among others). AMD already have almost a quarter of the
> desktop CPU market, and they aim for 30% by year's end. Notice how more
> vigorously AMD are promoting GNU/Linux compared to Intel? AMD's x86-64
> architecture will be incompatible with Itanium's, and there is no guarantee
> that M$ will make a Windos port for it. They need a good OS, and they've
> found one in GNU/Linux. Intel, of course, doesn't like that. Intel will
> surely support (i.e. run) GNU/Linux, but they won't actively promote it
> (much), since it just gives the competition a leg-up.
>
> So in conclusion, both Intel and Microsoft are mutually-beneficial monopolies
> (to use the economic, not the dictionary, definition). It doesn't make any
> business sense to promote another hardware architecture (MS) or OS (Intel).
> At the same time, however, other hardware and software platforms cannot be
> totally ignored.
>
> On Sat, 23 Jun 2001 21:55, Romanator wrote:
> > Where are our big guns? Please read this story when you have time.
> > However, it's not all doom and gloom.
> >
> >
> > http://www.zdnet.com/enterprise/stories/linux/0,12249,2778923,00.html
> >
> >
> > Roman
> > Registered Linux User #179293
> > Email Powered By Tux Email Utility
>
> --
> Sridhar Dhanapalan.
> "There are two major products that come from Berkeley:
> LSD and UNIX. We don't believe this to be a coincidence."
> -- Jeremy S. Anderson
