Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Intel Says Clover Trail Atom CPU Won't Work With Linux

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the that-will-go-over-well dept.

Intel 434

girlmad tips this news from the Inquirer: "Intel's Clover Trail Atom processor can be seen in various non-descript laptops around IDF and the firm provided a lot of architectural details on the chip, confirming details such as dual-core and a number of power states. However Intel said Clover Trail 'is a Windows 8 chip' and that 'the chip cannot run Linux.' While Intel's claim that Clover Trail won't run Linux is not quite true — after all, it is an x86 instruction set, so there is no major reason why the Linux kernel and userland will not run — given that the firm will not support it, device makers are unlikely to produce Linux Clover Trail devices for their own support reasons."

cancel ×

434 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Clover Tail Atom and Visual Studio (-1, Flamebait)

DevED (2730279) | more than 2 years ago | (#41333501)

Clover Tail Atom works if you code with the fabulous new Visual Studio. So Intel's intel is wrong.

Re:Clover Tail Atom and Visual Studio (1, Flamebait)

DevED (2730279) | more than 2 years ago | (#41333609)

Seriously, even the summary says that it works and Intel is wrong. Mod this up now.

antitrust issues? (0)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | more than 2 years ago | (#41333517)

Intel may be in for some kind of fine over this.

Re:antitrust issues? (5, Insightful)

macromorgan (2020426) | more than 2 years ago | (#41333543)

Doubt it. They can choose to support or not support whatever they want. They just can't actively use their current monopoly position to harm competition in another market (operating systems). If they put in some special instructions that actively sabotage the Linux kernel from running, that would be one thing. From what it sounds like though, they are merely not providing drivers/source code for Linux for some of the CPU features for this platform. Of course since a lot of geeks will try to get Linux running on a toaster for the lulz, I expect this to only be a short-term hindrance.

Re:antitrust issues? (4, Interesting)

WarmBoota (675361) | more than 2 years ago | (#41333603)

IANAL, but I recall that Microsoft got in a bit of trouble because early versions of Windows were designed NOT to run on top of Digital Research DOS. Not going out of your way to support something is one thing, being exclusionary and abusing a monopoly position is another

Re:antitrust issues? (2)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 2 years ago | (#41333971)

They never actually did it, and they never got into trouble for considering it either.

There was a beta of one version of Windows 3.x that put up a message along the lines of "This software is unreliable and unstable and will EAT YOUR BABY if you run it over DR-DOS" (well, words to that effect.) IIRC it was only in the beta, the version that was sold would run on everything.

Re:antitrust issues? (4, Insightful)

Errol backfiring (1280012) | more than 2 years ago | (#41333687)

"Not supported" is very different from "Can't run Linux". I would call this monopoly abuse.

Intel and Microsoft teaming up to herd the masses (4, Insightful)

FriendlyLurker (50431) | more than 2 years ago | (#41333853)

...into the Appelsk walled garden that Windows 8 appears to be heralding in (Windows Store only apps, "for your own security, comfort and ease of use", coming to you in Windows 8.5/9). Last thing our walled gardeners want is an alternative OS weed like Linux, working perfectly on the same hardware...

Re:antitrust issues? (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 2 years ago | (#41333867)

Didn't RTFA. So what's the short version? Does "Can't run Linux" mean that it current'y can't the OS because the kernel needs to be adapted to it? Or, does it mean that this will only execute code signed by Microsoft and that in no way in hell will it run anything else?

Re:antitrust issues? (5, Insightful)

postbigbang (761081) | more than 2 years ago | (#41334005)

Let's say the reason is either one.

Let's say that Intel wants to limit the audience for the chip, and cut their own sales. Let's say that AMD, VIA, and the ARMs makers will be delighted to fill in any vacuum.

Do.We.Care?

Re:antitrust issues? (1)

INT_QRK (1043164) | more than 2 years ago | (#41334091)

Jay! ...Go AMD!

Re:antitrust issues? (4, Insightful)

sjames (1099) | more than 2 years ago | (#41334053)

Actually it means Intel won't support running Linux on it.

Apparently Wintel is alive and well.

Re:antitrust issues? (1)

MysteriousPreacher (702266) | more than 2 years ago | (#41334083)

The article is less than an A4 page in length. That is the short version.

Re:antitrust issues? (1)

lcarnevale (1691570) | more than 2 years ago | (#41333823)

If Intel says "won't run" then most linux geeks will take it as a challenge and it WILL run (although maybe not all features will be enabled), if Intel "won't give support", then well, it just hurts the market, since we'll be seeing a lot more overpriced devices with (probably) crappy OSes

Re:antitrust issues? (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41333555)

So anyone that brings a processor to the game that doesn't support an existing version of Linux can face a lawsuit? Where do you people get this stuff?
 
Read a bit more, talk a bit less. Try to get some critical thinking skills. Maybe you won't come off like a Geek Squad reject.

Re:antitrust issues? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41333639)

u mad?

Re:antitrust issues? (1)

Hazel Bergeron (2015538) | more than 2 years ago | (#41333643)

Don't be dull. The problem isn't that Intel may decide not to support Linux but that Intel may be creating a vertical agreement with Microsoft, viz.:

Intel said Clover Trail 'is a Windows 8 chip'

Re:antitrust issues? (1)

grahamm (8844) | more than 2 years ago | (#41333861)

No. The offence is making the false claim that it will not run Linux.

Re:antitrust issues? (4, Informative)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 2 years ago | (#41333631)

Sigh. Why is this one of the first reactions when a manufacturer doesn't do something you want them to do? Seriously, Intel not only does not have a monopoly of tablet processors, I would say they don't even have a majority. ARM processors power the vast majority of tablets. Intel is only hurting themselves by not supporting Linux.

Re:antitrust issues? (-1, Flamebait)

Alex Belits (437) | more than 2 years ago | (#41333733)

Shut up, Microsoft astroturfer!

We will complain about whatever we want to complain, companies should serve their customers and not the other way around.

Re:antitrust issues? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41333809)

Shooting the messenger is the quickest way to lose an argument.

If you don't like what they are doing, don't buy their product. I hear AMD makes some fine chips.

Re:antitrust issues? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41333883)

I hear AMD makes some fine chips.

Yeah, and some people will actually vote for Romney. It's a wild world.

Re:antitrust issues? (-1, Troll)

Alex Belits (437) | more than 2 years ago | (#41333925)

Shooting the messenger is the quickest way to lose an argument.

Shooting THIS kind of messenger keeps Microsoft from shitting up the conversation.

If you don't like what they are doing, don't buy their product.

Only if you are Libertarian or at least Republican -- they believe that people have no right to defend themselves from "the market".

I hear AMD makes some fine chips.

This is completely irrelevant, and AMD does not make low-power x86 chips anymore.

Re:antitrust issues? (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 2 years ago | (#41333977)

Do you even know what you are talking about or is your only response to levy insults at other people? I would think someone with your low UID would know better.

First of all if you even remotely looked at my posts, you would see I'm no fan of MS. I believe they should have been broken up. Second if you read or understood the case against MS, the government went after MS for PCs not computers in general as they don't have a monopoly on servers, especially Unix/Linux servers. Also having a monopoly is not per se illegal. Abusing a monopoly is where they crossed the line. As such how can Intel be fined for taking actions when they are a minority in a market that they don't control. If Intel hedges their bets on Windows and MS only, they are idiots considering how MS has treated their past partners.

Re:antitrust issues? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41333799)

Yep, unfortunately it's hard to prove.

Somebody should hack into Intel or Microsoft's internal networks and dispose the secret trade agreements.

They've got it backwards. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41333523)

Chips aren't exactly designed to "run Linux" or any other OS. It's Linux that supports CPUs.. NOT the other way around.

All this means, is that Intel doesn't want to help. It does not mean it won't run Linux. Linux always finds a way to work.

Re:They've got it backwards. (3, Insightful)

beck001 (26515) | more than 2 years ago | (#41333545)

I am sure you didn't mean any disrespect, but the whole "Linux always finds a way to work" irks me. Linux doesn't fine a way, some extremely talented and hard working individuals spend vast amounts of their time building/designing/testing code to support hardware. It's not magical.

Again, I am sure you didn't mean anything negative by your comment, but I have seen this perspective become pervasive an I'd like it stop.

Re:They've got it backwards. (5, Funny)

jawtheshark (198669) | more than 2 years ago | (#41333563)

Operating systems don't like it when you anthropomorphize them? ;-)

Re:They've got it backwards. (4, Funny)

Dyinobal (1427207) | more than 2 years ago | (#41333591)

The original comment made me think of Linux powered Velociraptors.

Re:They've got it backwards. (5, Funny)

JustOK (667959) | more than 2 years ago | (#41333783)

Imagine a Beowulf cluster of them.

Re:They've got it backwards. (4, Funny)

Noryungi (70322) | more than 2 years ago | (#41333863)

A beowulf cluster of Linux-powered Velociraptors? I'd pay good money to see that. From a safe distance.

Re:They've got it backwards. (1)

GuldKalle (1065310) | more than 2 years ago | (#41333923)

No distance is safe.

Re:They've got it backwards. (1)

unitron (5733) | more than 2 years ago | (#41333975)

No distance is safe.

Well, there's always from orbit.

Re:They've got it backwards. (1)

CelticWhisper (601755) | more than 2 years ago | (#41334065)

But how can you be sure?

Re:They've got it backwards. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41333801)

Well I've always said you can tell which OS the velociraptors run on, you just look at who they attack: Windows attacks trees and shrubs, Linux attacks anything that moves, and OSX attacks hipsters. (Disclaimer: I run both OSX and Linux.)

Re:They've got it backwards. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41333865)

Well I've always said you can tell which OS the velociraptors run on, you just look at who they attack: Windows attacks trees and shrubs, Linux attacks anything that moves, and OSX attacks hipsters. (Disclaimer: I run both OSX and Linux.)

So I get you attack hipsters that move? :-)

Re:They've got it backwards. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41333615)

Damn you, you beat me to it.

Re:They've got it backwards. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41333845)

Operating systems don't like it when you anthropomorphize them? ;-)

No, people don't like it when you depersonalize them.

Re:They've got it backwards. (4, Funny)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 2 years ago | (#41333613)

it IS magic. you really can get new kernels for hardware that has no docs released. you simply cat from /dev/skyfairy. a new kernel is given to you if the skyfairy device thinks you are worthy.

Re:They've got it backwards. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41333891)

Ah, so that's the technical reason as to why I had to sacrifice a goat to my SCSI chain; to appease the Sky Fairies. Thanks for clearing that up TGN.

Re:They've got it backwards. (1)

schaiba (2708709) | more than 2 years ago | (#41334051)

Ah, so that's the technical reason as to why I had to sacrifice a goat to my SCSI chain; to appease the Sky Fairies. Thanks for clearing that up TGN.

What'd the poor goat ever do to you?

Re:They've got it backwards. (5, Funny)

MikeBabcock (65886) | more than 2 years ago | (#41333919)

#!/bin/sh
# million monkeys sky fairy code generator
ln -s /dev/urandom /dev/skyfairy
dd if=/dev/skyfairy of=/boot/bzImage bs=1k count=3000
reboot

Re:They've got it backwards. (4, Funny)

Noryungi (70322) | more than 2 years ago | (#41333931)

You have to do a "mknod /dev/tooth bp" for /dev/skyfairy to create the new kernel. The temporary device is deleted after the kernel creation is completed.

On some versions of Linux 3.x, you may need to init /dev/tooth for /dev/skyfairy to work correctly. Do read the man page.

Re:They've got it backwards. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41333789)

I don't think anyone thinks it's magical and that phrase meets your definition.

Re:They've got it backwards. (1)

Shavano (2541114) | more than 2 years ago | (#41333599)

Linux doesn't find anything. Linux developers find a way of they devote the time and energy. He may have been accurate as far as he meant to be interpreted as of now, no release of Linux works on it. According to another Slashdot article we just saw, you could run Linux on a pack of Magic: The Gathering cards.

Re:They've got it backwards. (2)

gauntletguy (923413) | more than 2 years ago | (#41333677)

Linux, uhh, finds a way

Re:They've got it backwards. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41333793)

Oh Lord Linux, take pity on those who doubt thy omnipotence. And smite not the feeble minded who say such things. (makes motion of a penguin genuflecting)

Re:They've got it backwards. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41333901)

Jurassic Park reference!

Re:They've got it backwards. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41333767)

Maybe they secretly want to see a Linux Distro for this processor. What better way to fire up the geekdom than to say Linux won't run on it.

Qui Bono? (5, Insightful)

Simon Brooke (45012) | more than 2 years ago | (#41333527)

I can't see what possible benefit it is to Intel to deliberately limit the market for their processors. Unless they are doing this for Microsoft's benefit, in which case, surely, there are anti-trust implications?

Re:Qui Bono? (1)

Shavano (2541114) | more than 2 years ago | (#41333627)

They may see it as a benefit to not bother helping port Linux because their Atom guys are too busy with Windows 8.

Re:Qui Bono? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41333839)

Lets see what is this particular atom chip aimed for... Tablets.

So who could make x86 tablets windows actually work? Hmmm... Let me think...

Lets break it down. The tablet market is run by Apple right now with their own custom Arm chip. The phones are android devices with Arm. So they need a killer app to make people want to switch from away from running Apple. Running x86 windows apps is pretty killer in a tablet...

Linux while interesting on a tablet already exists in the form of android. A clearly arm market right now. So concentrating on something that people would actually consider useful to buy is probably a smart thing. Risky though. As it means alienating a lot of goodwill they have built up in the linux community.

Re:Qui Bono? (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 2 years ago | (#41333649)

Another post about anti-trust? Does Intel have a monopoly on tablet processors? Do they control the tablet processor market? The answer isn't just no. It's an emphatic no.

Re:Qui Bono? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41333879)

I believe you're right. As far as I know, it is perfectly legal for one company to secretely pay or blackmail another company in order to shut out competition. However, this won't help Microsoft in the long run. They are going down in a long, slow decline and will end up as a patent troll.

Re:Qui Bono? (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 2 years ago | (#41334077)

It's not illegal for Intel to be idiots and partner with MS given their history with partners but neither player has a monopoly in this market. Intel has a right not to support Linux, but again, they are being short-sighted.

Re:Qui Bono? (1)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 2 years ago | (#41333671)

could simply be to let MS get a time lead over linux. that could be all it is.

maybe it takes 6mos to get linux kernel, devices and i/o working. that's a full 6mos that MS can brag and sell their new hot hardware and get at least some people to buy that might not otherwise do so.

maybe its 3mos. who knows. but its a time lead. and that, alone, could be enough for MS to be happy.

if you are ok waiting a bit, linux does seem to get people to port this and that and eventually enough stuff works that its now some kind of distro or platform.

Re:Qui Bono? (4, Insightful)

NoNonAlphaCharsHere (2201864) | more than 2 years ago | (#41333681)

No, It's just another case of Intel trying to steer the market in a certain (advantageous to Intel) direction. And the "cannot run" is a red herring, the real issue is "will not support"; and it's not so much "Linux" as "Android" that'll be lacking that support.

Re:Qui Bono? (1)

Cassini2 (956052) | more than 2 years ago | (#41333707)

Two reasons:
1. If Intel can use this processor to reestablish the Windows-Intel monopoly, then it will be a great move for Intel. This may be an attempt for Intel to throw a bone to Microsoft.
2. These processors might be very competitive in terms of processing power / watt. Intel may want to protect their Xeon server processor revenues. A Beosulf cluster of these processors may have a formidable amount of processing power.

Re:Qui Bono? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41333911)

Definitely it is a bone throw to Microsoft. Microsoft, with Windows 8 is launching war on Android and it counts on ARM as its platform. Intel comes late under the MS banner, with gifts, saying "ditch ARM, who grabs my lands, and I shell be loyal ally to thee in your war against Android who keeps what is rightfully Yours".

AntiTrust (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41333539)

I will not be limited or inhibited in any way to using specific software, which is why I don't use Apple products.

I have always supported Intel, but I will have to look at getting either AMD or buying a Chinese Ripoff chip.

Re:AntiTrust (1)

CapuchinSeven (2266542) | more than 2 years ago | (#41333651)

Er my mac runs OSX, Linux and Windows...

Re:AntiTrust (1)

Old97 (1341297) | more than 2 years ago | (#41333763)

And better yet, Apple actively supports the use of Windows on Macs - Bootcamp - in addition to the VM vendors.

Re:AntiTrust (1)

unixisc (2429386) | more than 2 years ago | (#41334001)

Yeah, but they deliberately preclude OS-X running on non Apple PCs. They protect their hardware 'monopoly', while relaxing their software 'monopoly'

Re:AntiTrust (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41334055)

Really? I have OS X on my thinkpad. I teach intro programming for artists so having a OS X box I can demonstrate on is quite helpful.

no tech reason here, move along. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41333553)

Saying that a chip cannot run an os is like saying that a pc that display a slideshow of flowers cannot do a slideshow of auromobiles.
The only way to achieve that is by actively restricting functionality. Well they can keep it.

Anything can run linux (3, Insightful)

Dyinobal (1427207) | more than 2 years ago | (#41333559)

If there is one thing life has taught me it is that anything can run Linux. All intel has done now is simply issued a challenge which my guess is won't take long for some skilled hardware hacker.

No leverage = fail (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41333569)

Without Linux support, it's only Windows. Microsoft will have monopoly pricing power, and Intel will have no leverage to get them to offer a lower priced Windows version for Clovertrail products. Thus the product is doomed.

Basically, Atom is dead until Intel can ditch the Imagination Tech IGP and use an IGP with working Linux drivers.

TPM chip (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41333579)

My guess is that they have some hardware DRM in there and Microsoft is the only one with the keys.

Re:TPM chip (1)

kav2k (1545689) | more than 2 years ago | (#41333825)

UEFI secure boot with MS keys hardwired, perhaps?

Oh wait, the Windows logo specs say it must be optional for x86.

"Won't Work" ? - that's just a way of being cute (1)

nukenerd (172703) | more than 2 years ago | (#41333581)

The expression "won't work with Linux" can usually be translated as "don't know if it works with Linux and we would not support it if we did".

I first met it with OS/2 rather than Linux when I was using internet banking in its early days. I rang the bank Help Desk (about a technical matter not a financial one) and it came out that I was on OS/2. "But Sir" they said "it doesn't run on OS/2, you have to use Windows!" .... "But it is running in front of me now" I said.

They were so shocked, as if I were being really irresponsible, that I feared they would cut off my account; but they didn't

Sorry : swap the words Technical and Financial (1)

nukenerd (172703) | more than 2 years ago | (#41333621)

Typo - I rang them on a financial matter. I would not have been daft enough to seek their advice on OS/2.

Really, Linux won't (currently) support CT (5, Informative)

Jahava (946858) | more than 2 years ago | (#41333587)

So, as an aside, isn't the entire point of a tech aggregator to provide a technical summary? Not just copy and paste the article's summary... anyway...

FTFA:

Intel went to great lengths to highlight the new P-states and C-states in which it can completely shut down the clock of a core. The firm said the operating system needs to provide "hints" to the processor in order to make use of power states and it seems likely that such hints are presently not provided by the Linux kernel in order to properly make use of Clover Trail.

In other words, Intel has added new capabilities to Clover Trail that allow enhanced power management, and Linux doesn't currently support it. Anyone who thinks that this will continue to be the case for much longer is a moron, especially if Intel continues to release its architecture datasheets, which we have no reason to think that they won't.

The article really says: It can't run Linux because there's no support for it in Linux, and there's no support for it because it's literally brand-new.

Re:Really, Linux won't (currently) support CT (4, Interesting)

pmontra (738736) | more than 2 years ago | (#41333709)

I hope so (for them) because "it can't run Linux" means "no Android devices with our chip". That's a huge market to leave to the competition.

Re:Really, Linux won't (currently) support CT (4, Insightful)

Truekaiser (724672) | more than 2 years ago | (#41333749)

They stated this is a windows 8 only chip. So they won't release specs for other operating systems to use this. Also since windows 8 'require's' the uefi secure boot option, how much do you want to bet intel made Clover trail boards 'won't' support either disabling it nor adding your own keys?

This won't stop linux dev's. Saying something can't work is a challenge to some of them. it's just intel won't provide patches for the in kernal systems to get it running, they might even go as far as to stop such patches being added if they actually 'did' make an agreement with microsoft to make this a 'windows 8 only' chip.

Re:Really, Linux won't (currently) support CT (4, Funny)

crazyjj (2598719) | more than 2 years ago | (#41333769)

Bringing reason into a discussion about Windows vs. Linux *AND* actually reading the article?!?!

Sir, I demand you surrender your Slashdot membership card!

Re:Really, Linux won't (currently) support CT (4, Interesting)

unixisc (2429386) | more than 2 years ago | (#41334109)

In that case, the article summary was currect. Yeah, Clover Trail is an x86 CPU, but it has certain new power management states that have to be software driven, presumably w/ new instructions. Since Linux currently doesn't make use of them (I'm assuming that Intel worked w/ MS to ensure that Windows 8 does), if a vendor puts Linux on top of it w/o customizing it for this CPU, then it won't take advantage of the power management techniques. As a result, such a tablet will gouge more power than it would running Windows 8, and that's why Intel currently doesn't want to support it.

Once the next version of the Linux kernel - be it 3.5 or 3.6 - adds support for the Clover Trail instructions in its power management schemes, this CPU too will support Linux. The other possibility - Intel may be waiting for Android or Tizen to support this platform before it confirms that this CPU can run Linux.

Re:Really, Linux won't (currently) support CT (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 2 years ago | (#41334131)

In other words, Intel has added new capabilities to Clover Trail that allow enhanced power management, and Linux doesn't currently support it. Anyone who thinks that this will continue to be the case for much longer is a moron

Oddly, Linux still doesn't seem to have proper power management support for my Athlon 64 L110 processor (mobile, 1.2GHz) which is now very fucking old.

this reaks like a fart in a car... (1)

Type44Q (1233630) | more than 2 years ago | (#41333685)

Many of us have been expecting this sort of thing for a while. I suspect at the heart of it this has less to do with Microsofft and more to do with TPTB wanting to make inroads against general-purpose computing... hopefully that cat is safely out of [reach of] their bag...

Re:this reaks like a fart in a car... (1)

Type44Q (1233630) | more than 2 years ago | (#41333701)

reaks? reeks. :)

Re:this reaks like a fart in a car... (1)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 2 years ago | (#41333929)

reaks? reeks. :)

wictionary says [wiktionary.org]

Noun
reak (plural reaks)
(obsolete) A prank.
They play such reaks. — Beaumont and Flanders.

Re:this reaks like a fart in a car... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41334029)

Reek:
Intransitive verb
a : to give off or become permeated with a strong or offensive odor
b : to give a strong impression of some constituent quality or feature

Intel doesn't choose my operating system (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41333729)

I choose my operating system, and I choose my chips. And this chip won't be entering my house, unless someone in the kernel community decides to do Intel a huge favor and support it without them.

Will it run OS X? (0)

crazyjj (2598719) | more than 2 years ago | (#41333731)

It would seem that everyone assumes this is some sort of collusion with MS. But if it runs Apple too, that might suggest otherwise.

And, yes, I know OS X and Linux share a common heritage.

Re:Will it run OS X? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41333805)

AFAIK Apple has never used an Atom CPU yet, probably because they perform like crap. So I doubt we'll see these processors running OS X anytime soon.

I hope, someone will get fired over that statement (3, Interesting)

Alex Belits (437) | more than 2 years ago | (#41333765)

It is the first time ever that Intel announced direct hostility toward some piece of software -- I hope, it's just someone's fuckup and not a policy change.

Re:I hope, someone will get fired over that statem (1)

gaelfx (1111115) | more than 2 years ago | (#41333949)

Exactly. In my (relatively limited) experience, Intel's wireless chipsets work much better with Linux than other manufacturer's, and though I could be wrong, I'm pretty sure it's because they actually develop their Linux drivers alongside their Windows drivers. If they changed this policy, then I seriously fret for the state of wireless support in Linux. I, too, sincerely hope it's someone's fuckup.

Android (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41333791)

So by extension Android is out too?

Re:Android (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41333903)

So by extension Android is out too?

Unless the new version of Android happens to be Windows 8 based, yes.

Too bad (1)

kiriath (2670145) | more than 2 years ago | (#41333797)

I'm sure they'll see the error of their ways both in support when the countless numbers who don't read this article try to use linux, and lack of sales in the future because I can with great certainty tell you I'm not buying one.

This seems pretty shady on the part of Intel.

Of course there are probably some MS crazies out there who are like "Finally! A Chip that won't support that evil convoluted operating system!!!!!!"

Computing from a few, like petrol ? (1)

jcdr (178250) | more than 2 years ago | (#41333827)

Computer, especially smartphone and tablet are now a cash cow business. The happy few that have the biggest money will do anything to stop the flow of money to them. All of us will have a single choice: to pay them no matter what. Look like how the giant petrol companies are doing business.

Please, notify the European Commission (2)

G3ckoG33k (647276) | more than 2 years ago | (#41333873)

Please, notify the European Commission.

I am positively sure they will not like this.

(I don't have any appropriate channels, otherwise I would have done it)

I guess we now know the answer to the question (2)

markdowling (448297) | more than 2 years ago | (#41333937)

how, in a media swamped with Apple mania, do you get attention for a processor launch?

If Intel actually goes through with this... (1)

Tator Tot (1324235) | more than 2 years ago | (#41333943)

If Intel actually goes through with this Linux will never catch on!

highly doubt that (1)

godrik (1287354) | more than 2 years ago | (#41333955)

Provided the linux kernel is used in android and that intel tries so much to enter the android market, I highly doubt that their new power efficient chip wont work with linux. It would mean they won't ship it in android as well.

Sounds like BS (5, Interesting)

JDG1980 (2438906) | more than 2 years ago | (#41333995)

Is there any source for this statement besides The Inquirer? They're basically a tech tabloid and have gotten a lot of things wrong (or overly sensationalized) in the past. I checked Anandtech and Tom's Hardware, both of which covered Intel's presentations this week. No mention of this. I did a Google search for "clover trail" "Windows 8 chip" and found ONLY the Inquirer article and other articles and blog posts directly quoting and linking to it. No reliable third-party tech sites saying the same thing.

This doesn't make sense in terms of Intel's overall philosophy. They have always been good about Linux support for nearly everything else – they don't want to get themselves tied in too closely with Microsoft, for fear that this would reduce their leverage.

I think this story is bullshit. A generous interpretation would be that the reporter heard that the chip ran Windows 8 and that Linux *currently* did not have the necessary support for the "new P-states and C-states" in Clover Trail, and misinterpreted that as saying that only Windows 8 will ever be officially supported. A less generous interpretation is that the Inquirer knowingly made up this crap to get more page hits. In any case, I expect Intel to make their actual position clear soon enough, now that this story seems to have gone viral.

Big deal... (1)

unitron (5733) | more than 2 years ago | (#41333999)

...I've already got an AMD board that won't run Linux.

smart ploy! (1, Interesting)

nazsco (695026) | more than 2 years ago | (#41334013)

They tried building their own Linux distro. It sucked!

They tried giving docs and nobody cared.

They tried writing drivers themselves and again they sucked.

So now they are double daring every developer saying win8 is technically better than anything they coded

4.0 onwards intel chips not supported in Linux (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41334081)

Enterprise customers please note Enterprise Linux versions will not run on any intel chips as those chips lack features needed for Linux kernel 4.0 onwards.

NetBSD (1)

Breizhtic (2730307) | more than 2 years ago | (#41334085)

At least, it will run on it.

It's probably the PowerVR (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41334099)

graphics that forces them to say that, they don't want to waste time on supporting it on Linux.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?