Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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 CEO Paul Otellini Retiring

Unknown Lamer posted about a year and a half ago | from the king-of-the-micro-world dept.

Intel 108

An anonymous reader writes with a quick bit from a press release about Intel's CEO retiring: "Intel Corporation today announced that the company's president and CEO, Paul Otellini, has decided to retire as an officer and director at the company's annual stockholders' meeting in May, starting an orderly leadership transition over the next six months. Otellini's decision to retire will bring to a close a remarkable career of nearly 40 years of continuous service to the company and its stockholders."

cancel ×

108 comments

The arc of architecture (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42035985)

Will see the future trend ...?

Re:The arc of architecture (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42036751)

Yep, you're right, Wintel is dying.

First Sinofsky, now Otellini. The big rats who know how rotten the ship is have started to flee, soon they'll be followed by the rest of the swarm.

Intel is too big ... (1, Interesting)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | about a year and a half ago | (#42037761)

... Intel used to be nimble --- and I'm talking about the time of 8088/8086 up to 80386/80387.

When Pentium came to market, Intel were so successful that most of its competitors just got out of the game, and allowed Intel to get bigger and bigger until they became the 800lb gorilla.

What Intel is facing is a market that's totally different from what it had faced for the past 30 years - embedded processor from ARM.

Intel's Atom processors was their reply to ARM and we all know how successful Atom turned out to be.

As if it's not enough, Intel is again shooting its own feet.

Intel is gambling with its own mainstream CPU - We have seen what they did to their Ivy Bridge, which is not that impressive as compared to the previous Sandy Bridge platform.

And their next gen CPU, the Haswell - Intel is actually trying to move Haswell to the direction of ARM - by making them "power saving".

What Intel really needs is to pursue a course up the curve - by making their processor much more powerful, not by making them weaker (albeit power saving).

Intel needs to come up with chips that have more cores which runs at much higher speed.

The real threat to Intel is not from ARM.

The real threat to Intel is from Nvidia / ATI.

Romney endorsement (-1, Offtopic)

Tontoman (737489) | about a year and a half ago | (#42035987)

Otellini was on Barack Obama's jobs counsel. And yet notoriously supported Romney for president. Maybe there is a cause-and-effect here.

Re:Romney endorsement (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42036049)

Why does supporting Romney make him notorious? Are you one of these socialist asshats who think government should provide womb to tomb gifts to you? Romney was the last chance we as a nation had to regain the former glory that the founding fathers intended. Obama will destroy this country after 4 more years. Hope you like paying $15 per gallon for gasoline.

Re:Romney endorsement (-1, Flamebait)

hondo77 (324058) | about a year and a half ago | (#42036117)

Romney was the last chance we as a nation had to regain the former glory that the founding fathers intended.

By restoring slavery?

Re:Romney endorsement (-1, Troll)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about a year and a half ago | (#42036581)

I dont think you want to bring slavery into the party politics discussion, if as I suspect you are a democrat. Best to leave that hornets nest alone.

Re:Romney endorsement (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42040295)

Red herring. Who was for civil rights? Democrats. Not Republicans. The false equivalency of many libertarians is annoying. Yes, there are many similarities between Democrats and Republicans, but if you were forced to choose, Republicans are historically far worse for the country.

Re:Romney endorsement (0)

lister king of smeg (2481612) | about a year and a half ago | (#42043845)

the Republican party was the party in favor of freeing slaves while the democratic party wanted to keep them chained.

"Founded in the Northern states in 1854 by anti-slavery activists, modernizers, ex-Whigs and ex-Free Soilers, the Republican Party quickly became the principal opposition to the dominant Southern Democratic Party and the briefly popular Know Nothing Party. The main cause was opposition to the Kansas–Nebraska Act, which repealed the Missouri Compromise by which slavery was kept out of Kansas. The Northern Republicans saw the expansion of slavery as a great evil. The first public meeting where the name "Republican" was suggested for a new anti-slavery party was held on March 20, 1854 in a schoolhouse in Ripon, Wisconsin"
-the all knowing wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(United_States)#History [wikipedia.org]

Who was worse again?

Re:Romney endorsement (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42050019)

This is why I said what I said. The Republican party started that way, but it is in no way the party in its current state. I'm well aware of the origins of each party, but you're clearly still living in 1854 if you think the Republicans are supported by non-whites.

Re:Romney endorsement (-1, Offtopic)

Dishevel (1105119) | about a year and a half ago | (#42037879)

Awesome. Yes that is it. Luckily the MSM was able to convince you before it was too late that in fact YES,
Romneys plan was to bring back slavery. Had the blacks turned against Obama they would have all been put back in chains and began once again to pick cotton.
Thank God...Umm. Wonderful loving, trusting thanks to the State that they prevented that from happening.

What a fucking idiot.

Re:Romney endorsement (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42041249)

LOL at MSM bias claims. He got swept. Butthurt Romney fan. Romney conceded, why can't you?

Re:Romney endorsement (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42041337)

I have no problems with the election.
I believe that Romney would not have been as bad as Obama.
But he was in no way the kind of guy who could turn this crap around.
So AC. Go LOL somewhere else.

Re:Romney endorsement (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42041641)

Romney would not have been as bad as Obama based on what? The man flip-flopped on basically everything and that's not a problem if it was clearly because new information changed his mindset, but it's clear he just did it for political expediency not some sort of principled, reasoned stance. How can you even trust a guy like that?

I hate having to do this, but partisan hacks like you will call me out on it if I don't explicitly state that I didn't vote for Obama (or Romney).

Re:Romney endorsement (-1)

Foxhoundz (2015516) | about a year and a half ago | (#42036133)

Romney was the last chance we as a nation had to regain the former glory that the founding fathers intended.

Former glory? If the founding fathers had their way, I would still be considered a property. Kindly shove your ideology somewhere else.

Re:Romney endorsement (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42036177)

Many of the founding fathers wanted to strike slavery from the constitution but couldn't. There wouldn't have been a ratification.

Ignoring the other 99% of the constitution and the writings of the founding fathers only highlight your ignorance of the philosophy behind the founding documents.

Re:Romney endorsement (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42037253)

I think it's just time to give up any logical argument until it all goes to shit...

Re:Romney endorsement (-1)

sideslash (1865434) | about a year and a half ago | (#42036363)

Former glory?

If the founding fathers had their way, I would still be considered a property. Kindly shove your ideology somewhere else.

Get educated, dude. Many of the founding fathers had already successfully abolished slavery in their states, and were working to do so in all the colonies as soon as they peacefully could.

But you're missing the OP's point, which was that the founding fathers understood the importance of freedom from tyrannical government. Obama is moving us in the direction of the nanny state -- a government that aggressively redistributes money is unlikely to respect private property or private freedoms. Our federal government doesn't know how to shrink itself or avoid interfering in people's lives. People of Obama's mindset want to consolidate the growth and momentum of the country in the public sector, not the private sector. This trend only naturally moves in one direction unless forced by the people to do otherwise. The Revolutionary War was an occasion of forcing an oppressive government to back off, and it was a Good Thing (tm).

Re:Romney endorsement (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42036501)

How is returning to Clinton-era tax rates and health care reform tyranny?

Re:Romney endorsement (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42036707)

How is returning to Clinton-era tax rates and health care reform tyranny?

Because the tax rates and health reforms are not accompanied with Clinton-era spending levels and Clinton-era spending reforms. Uncontrolled spending can lead to economic collapse, which can lead to a desperate populace, which can lead to tyranny.

Re:Romney endorsement (0)

ysth (1368415) | about a year and a half ago | (#42036897)

Good thing we got the collapse out of the way first, then?

Re:Romney endorsement (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42037307)

Preventing the collapse of companies that needed to collapse will lead to the collapse of the entire economy.

Re:Romney endorsement (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42045581)

That was a tiny little bump in the road compared to the day the US debt is called in.

Re:Romney endorsement (1)

ysth (1368415) | about a year and a half ago | (#42045827)

"called in"? On what terms do you think the debt is?

The interest on the debt is basically funding the buying up of the US by foreign countries, a very bad thing, but not something they want to "call in".

Re:Romney endorsement (1)

Foxhoundz (2015516) | about a year and a half ago | (#42036673)

Get educated, dude. Many of the founding fathers had already successfully abolished slavery in their states, and were working to do so in all the colonies as soon as they peacefully could.

I'm sorry, but what? Depending on who's on your "founding fathers" list, many of them not only supported slavery but owned several, sometimes ranging in the hundreds, of slaves. I'm not going to question your upbringing or education, but whitewashing a somewhat embarrassing side of history is ridiculous. Call for what it is.

Re:Romney endorsement (4, Insightful)

LordLucless (582312) | about a year and a half ago | (#42036893)

Many of the founding fathers had already successfully abolished slavery in their states, and were working to do so in all the colonies as soon as they peacefully could.

This is true

many of them not only supported slavery but owned several, sometimes ranging in the hundreds, of slaves

So is this.

It's almost like the founding fathers were a disparate group of people, each with their own opinions and perspectives, and trying to paint the entire group as either ruthless slavers or crusading abolitionists is painting with too wide a brush.

Re:Romney endorsement (1)

DMiax (915735) | about a year and a half ago | (#42037823)

And that is why they did not address slavery in the constitution in the first place.

Re:Romney endorsement (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42038137)

They did, by writing language in to provide for the abolition of the slave trade

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_Prohibiting_Importation_of_Slaves

The goal of the Constitutional Convention was to form a stronger Federal Union, which they archived. Leaving the status quo with Slavery was required to form a stronger union that could one day abolish the abhorrent practice.

Re:Romney endorsement (1)

CohibaVancouver (864662) | about a year and a half ago | (#42037263)

Obama is moving us in the direction of the nanny state -- a government that aggressively redistributes money is unlikely to respect private property or private freedoms.

Get educated, dude. The Republican party is the nanny state X10. Party of liberty my ass.

Re:Romney endorsement (3, Insightful)

Dishevel (1105119) | about a year and a half ago | (#42037915)

Libretarians are the party of liberty.
Tea Party is the fiscally and socially conservative party,
Democrats and Republicans both are Huge government controlling you.
Democrats want a bunch of money to spend on green energy, unions and social welfare.
Republicans want a bunch of money for defense contractors and oil.
They both are the bane of freedom.
The biggest threat to freedom though are the lazy entitled voters. Freedom is hard, dangerous and takes work.
Americans are no longer those types of people.

Re:Romney endorsement (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42037937)

Heh. Bending over for large corporations and the rich is not "fiscally conservative", nor is it "fiscally responsible". Those are myths perpetuated by corporations and the rich.

Re:Romney endorsement (1)

sideslash (1865434) | about a year and a half ago | (#42041029)

What in the world are you talking about? Do you know what "fiscally conservative" means? Maybe if you get more specific instead of using vague and weird figures of speech this will be clearer.

Re:Romney endorsement (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42038357)

I got and actively use my freedoms. I am living in Norway. Democratic socialism works fine in the Nordic countries, Germany, Switzerland, Australia, NZ, Canada, and other plases.

Re:Romney endorsement (1)

sideslash (1865434) | about a year and a half ago | (#42040953)

Get educated, dude. The Republican party is the nanny state X10. Party of liberty my ass.

I don't know about the X10 part, it sort of depends what issues are most important to you. Both Republicans and Democrats push for a nanny state in different ways. Since you're obviously already aware of the Republican side, I'll just list a few Democrat ways:

- Restriction of free speech in terms of political donations.
- Restriction of free speech by categorizing it as "hate speech".
- Restriction on commerce -- for example, even if you are an experienced hairdresser, you can't just set up a hair salon in New Orleans (or similarly, drive a taxi in NYC, etc.) due to burdensome and asphyxiating regulations.
- Restriction on commerce -- unions are empowered by law to effectively tax all their non-union coworkers in many states, effectively taking other people's money (and donating a bunch of it to the Democratic party, isn't that convenient?).
- Restriction on personal accumulation of wealth -- forced redistribution appears to be openly embraced by the Democrats these days.

In general, the Republicans are supposed to be the party of smaller government. They've fallen down on the job in many ways, but in that respect they're still a lot better than the Democrats. Obama wants the government to grow without limit and encompass many more areas of our life in this country. To the extent that his vision is realized, the nanny state will grow.

If you get in debt to someone, that person will gain the ability to control your life. If more and more people are beholden to the government, the government will control their lives. Government paying for your healthcare? Oh, then you won't complain if the government tells you not to smoke or eat trans fats anymore, right?

Re:Romney endorsement (3, Insightful)

CajunArson (465943) | about a year and a half ago | (#42036457)

If your ancestors hadn't been kidnapped from Africa, then you might be considered property in 2012 considering slavery is alive and well in many regions of Africa right now...

Re:Romney endorsement (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42037709)

Troll maybe, but true.

The lot of most blacks in their own countries isn't very good.

Re:Romney endorsement (1)

mcgrew (92797) | about a year and a half ago | (#42046009)

If your ancestors hadn't been kidnapped from Africa, then you might be considered property in 2012 considering slavery is alive and well in many regions of Africa right now

And unless he's done some geneology research, his anscestors may have quite possibly been free people. Not all American blacks were slaves.

Re:Romney endorsement (4, Insightful)

alvinrod (889928) | about a year and a half ago | (#42036219)

Maybe I'm just feeding trolls on this (and honestly with the hyperbole in your post, I can't help but think that) but I don't see it that way. I generally lean more towards the right, at least fiscally, and Romney wasn't our last chance, and Obama is not some kind of super red socialist. By most objectives, he's still fairly right of center and a lot of his policies aren't something that hasn't been proposed by Republicans at some point with in the last half-century.

If anything, Otellini was smart enough to play both sides of the isle, ensuring that no matter who came out on top, IBM had friends with benefits or markers to call in. And honestly, who cares who he supported or endorsed. If you're basing your entire assessment of a person on who they endorse for President, it makes you look narrow-minded.

Re:Romney endorsement (2)

MarioMax (907837) | about a year and a half ago | (#42036485)

IBM? Otellini is Intel's CEO, not IBM.

Re:Romney endorsement (3, Insightful)

tyrione (134248) | about a year and a half ago | (#42036647)

Lean towards the right fiscally? In short, you lean towards massive deficits, high defense spending and play ignorant to both when a Democrat is in office, right? The GOP is responsible for the lion's share of deficit and produced far fewer jobs in this nation's history. It's a vile, ignorant, POS party, full of self-entitled white trash who raped the nation of its wealth because ``leaning towards the right, fiscally'' folks continue voting in this slime.

Re:Romney endorsement (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | about a year and a half ago | (#42036735)

Are you one of those Libertarian asshats that cloaks your sociopathic tendencies in ideology?

Re:Romney endorsement (1)

Alex Belits (437) | about a year and a half ago | (#42038149)

No, he is one of those Libertarian asshats who are actually all Social Conservatives in disguise.

Re:Romney endorsement (2)

mwvdlee (775178) | about a year and a half ago | (#42037955)

regain the former glory that the founding fathers intended.

So you like wearing wigs. eh?

Or were you talking about just a select part of what you consider "former glory" and use "founding fathers" as an argument to give your personal views a false sense of authority?

On the other hand, if you are talking about returning the entire state of the US back a few centuries, I'm all with you; they didn't have computers back in those former glory times.

Claiming something is right based on some decissions made by politicians for a society centuries ago (I guess politicians back then were just as infallible as they are now) is at least as useless as claiming something's right based on some holy scripture.

Re:Romney endorsement (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42040403)

Claiming something is right based on some decissions made by politicians for a society centuries ago (I guess politicians back then were just as infallible as they are now) is at least as useless as claiming something's right based on some holy scripture.

There's a huge difference between men who fought for their country with their own lives and principles and then became politicians and the current crop of career politicians. But go right ahead and setup your strawman.

Re:Romney endorsement (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42039041)

How funny. Prior to 1981, America was the tops. Since 1981, when you neo-cons came to power and controlled, America has fallen from grace during reagan and then under W. And yet, idiots like you want to return to those same failed policies with an idiot like Romney. You provide proof that Education in America is severely degraded. We need to re-start the teaching of logic, otherwise, we will end up with more failures such as yourself.

Re:Romney endorsement (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42044295)

Aw, little butthurt white weenie. I am trying real hard not to laugh. But failing, tee hee. [tumblr.com]

Silly season is over. (4, Insightful)

symbolset (646467) | about a year and a half ago | (#42036195)

Can we give it a rest for 3 years or so?

Re:Silly season is over. (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about a year and a half ago | (#42036597)

Youre on the wrong site if you want to avoid stupid partisan arguments.

Re:Silly season is over. (1)

davester666 (731373) | about a year and a half ago | (#42037367)

Hitler was never slandered so badly!

Re:Silly season is over. (1)

mcgrew (92797) | about a year and a half ago | (#42043011)

Sadly, yes. However, that is a very recent phenomenon.

Re:Silly season is over. (1)

lister king of smeg (2481612) | about a year and a half ago | (#42044071)

really? we hae tons of partisan arguing.
vi vs emacs
rpm vs deb
apple vs ms vs linux
android vs ios
C vs any other language
risc vs cisc
amd vs intel
kde vs gnome
gnu vs bsd
linux vs gnu/linux
sql vs nosql
steve woz vs steve jobs

its all partisan arguing just our arguing is usually more interesting than which power hungry liar is worse

Re:Romney endorsement (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42036357)

Please. I'm an Obama supporter/contributor and even I recognize that the "business advisory board on jobs" was just photo-ops for the WH, and a chance to gain connections/audition for a cabinet level job for the CEOs. It's not like anybody's mind will be opened or changed as a result of these fascinating discussions.

Otellini Post! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42035995)

Or OP! I got the last post. Nah nah nah nah boo boo!!!

Obligatory (4, Funny)

Elgonn (921934) | about a year and a half ago | (#42036037)

He stepped down just before 40 years so we could make 39.9876 year pentium jokes.

Congrats (1)

cultiv8 (1660093) | about a year and a half ago | (#42036053)

good luck to the future.

Re:Congrats (1)

Anne_Nonymous (313852) | about a year and a half ago | (#42036403)

The smart money says he was pushed, rather than that he jumped.

Re:Congrats (1)

Amouth (879122) | about a year and a half ago | (#42042575)

Given his track record i highly doubt that.

There aren't many CEOs with his track record (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42036143)

This man raised the personal computing industry from birth to adolescence. The entire world would be a different place (for better or worse) without Otellini's Intel. Now that's an accomplishment worth carrying into retirement.

Re:There aren't many CEOs with his track record (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42036777)

He raised raised the personal computing industry from birth to adolescence in the same way that Al Gore invented the Internet.

Re:There aren't many CEOs with his track record (2)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42037593)

Don't be ignorant.

He managed the group that gave us the Pentium 1.

Re:There aren't many CEOs with his track record (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42037873)

I had never seen a glossier section in PC Magazine than that for the Pentium.

Re:There aren't many CEOs with his track record (1)

helix2301 (1105613) | about a year and a half ago | (#42039377)

Otellini's move comes at a time when Intel faces a shaky economy and a mobile gadget craze that is eating away at demand for its PC chips and it gives the company just six months to find a new leader.

Reason for departing (4, Funny)

Grayhand (2610049) | about a year and a half ago | (#42036161)

"For myself and my stock options I'd like to thank you all and wish you all the best of luck. Forward all mail to the Cayman Islands."

what do the bunnypeople have to say? (1)

jollyreaper (513215) | about a year and a half ago | (#42036167)

Notice how we haven't seen them in ads for years.

Re:what do the bunnypeople have to say? (1)

MarioMax (907837) | about a year and a half ago | (#42036513)

Notice how we haven't seen them in ads for years.

As a bunny-suit wearing Intel fab worker, I find this interesting, but not completely unexpected. It was never a matter of if, but when. Otellini wasn't Intel's first CEO, and unless something crazy happens between now and May, he won't be the last.

Re:what do the bunnypeople have to say? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42040451)

You're a process engineer? *drools* How do you get that job? What are your credentials? PhD?

I nominate... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42036283)

I nominate Bill (aka William) Stokes to take over for this position.

He certainly cares about the company and doing what's right more than others seem to!

Sanjay Jha for a replacement? (1)

Erich (151) | about a year and a half ago | (#42036373)

Sanjay Jha is out of MOT. He'd be my pick for a replacement. You heard it here first!

Bad Ass (4, Interesting)

cstec (521534) | about a year and a half ago | (#42036533)

Intel is pretty corporate, and that's like a crime here on /. But for anyone old enough to remember or fool enough to listen, when it's all said and done this guy's track record has been damn close to paved in gold.

No, I don't mean Intel's track record with the Peruvian Jackalope, Global Coating or whatever axe you have to grind. I mean his job of being part of, contributing to and guiding a very large and important ship. Much of it before the average /.r could read.

Having been Z80 guy, a 6502 guy and a 68k guy, and also a guy writing endless apps in the Intel space and building endless machines, when it's all said and done, if your last words are anything other than "thank you", you're a punk.

Safe travels Paul.

Re:Bad Ass (2)

Tough Love (215404) | about a year and a half ago | (#42037775)

f your last words are anything other than "thank you", you're a punk

Did the illegal trust-making activity happen on Otellini's watch?

Re:Bad Ass (-1, Troll)

Alex Belits (437) | about a year and a half ago | (#42038189)

Go fuck yourself. He was one of many executives in a company that achieved control of the industry by tweaking a hopelessly obsolete architecture for three decades until architecture stopped mattering anymore.

Re:Bad Ass (1)

mcgrew (92797) | about a year and a half ago | (#42046651)

Go fuck yourself.

Your comment fits your sig quite well.

Re:Bad Ass (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42039243)

Intel is pretty corporate, and that's like a crime here on /. But for anyone old enough to remember or fool enough to listen, when it's all said and done this guy's track record has been damn close to paved in gold.

No, I don't mean Intel's track record with the Peruvian Jackalope, Global Coating or whatever axe you have to grind. I mean his job of being part of, contributing to and guiding a very large and important ship. Much of it before the average /.r could read.

Having been Z80 guy, a 6502 guy and a 68k guy, and also a guy writing endless apps in the Intel space and building endless machines, when it's all said and done, if your last words are anything other than "thank you", you're a punk.

Safe travels Paul.

Otellini's Intel also engaged in antitrust practices against AMD (and found guilty by court), fuck Otellini and yourself.

Re:Bad Ass (1)

T.E.D. (34228) | about a year and a half ago | (#42047045)

Having been Z80 guy, a 6502 guy and a 68k guy

... none of which were Intel CPU's (Zilog, and two Motorollas).

Otellini: The guy no one payed attention to (1, Flamebait)

tyrione (134248) | about a year and a half ago | (#42036681)

This guy will go down as a footnote. Andy Grove is the guy who made Intel a giant. And I'm rooting for AMD.

Re:Otellini: The guy no one payed attention to (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42036837)

Good thinking arm chair business genius!

Re:Otellini: The guy no one payed attention to (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42041195)

Read again, he said AMD, not ARM. Dumbass.

Re:Otellini: The guy no one payed attention to (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42037205)

What have you done in your life that's so great?
I doubt you'll ever achieve 1/100th of what Otellini did.

Re:Otellini: The guy no one payed attention to (1)

Alex Belits (437) | about a year and a half ago | (#42038203)

I never ever helped Microsoft in its world conquest, that's infinitely better than what he did.

Re:Otellini: The guy no one payed attention to (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42040557)

The number of people who will remember Otellini will vastly outweigh the number of people who remember you. I don't like the guy personally but let's not falsely elevate ourselves above him because of some artificially limiting ideology like "Microsoft is bad." Use the best tool for the job that gets your job done fastest and easiest. At times the answer is Microsoft. Besides you'd spend what? Maybe 10k in your lifetime on Microsoft products at best? Let's be generous and say you know and can influence 100 other individuals. That's what? 1 million? You're hardly the deciding factor for whether they succeed or fail. Don't kid yourself. Delusional is a defense mechanism for a life of mediocrity.

Re:Otellini: The guy no one payed attention to (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year and a half ago | (#42041581)

The number of people who will remember Otellini will vastly outweigh the number of people who remember you

The number of people who will remember Hitler will vastly outweigh the number of people who will remember Otellini. Logical fallacies are fun, right?

let's not falsely elevate ourselves above him because of some artificially limiting ideology like "Microsoft is bad."

Artificially limiting ideology? Now I know you're just a troll. The ideology "Microsoft is bad" is a totally rational defense mechanism, based on the lessons of history.

Re:Otellini: The guy no one payed attention to (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42042085)

If you don't want to use fame (as opposed to notoriety), then you could use any other measure of success: money, power, number of children who are themselves successful, etc. I'm sure you could find a counterexample to all of those, but that the point is GGP is definitely a nobody with quixotic delusions of grandeur.

It is an artificially limiting ideology. If you were given two products one that worked though it potentially violated your personal set of ethics and the other took a lot of effort to get working, wasn't really supported by anyone and didn't violate your personal set of ethics, and you chose the former, your ideology is by definition artificially limiting.

I used to think Microsoft is bad because I listened to enough people on Slashdot and freenode and the collective groupthink was easy for an impressionable teenager to parrot. Sure I realize Microsoft has been indicted by the DoJ for abusing their monopoly and that is a bad thing to do. I'm currently writing this from an Arch Linux box, but I'm not deluded enough to believe that Microsoft is not an appropriate solution in some situations and I won't avoid it "just because." Maybe you work in software or as a sysadmin and have the luxury of being the equivalent of a vegan when it comes to operating systems. Not every does or even cares to have that luxury and when you say "Microsoft is bad" as a blanket statement, you look really foolish.

I won't call you a troll, but just the stereotypical out-of-touch neckbeard.

Re:Otellini: The guy no one payed attention to (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year and a half ago | (#42042427)

It is an artificially limiting ideology. If you were given two products one that worked though it potentially violated your personal set of ethics and the other took a lot of effort to get working, wasn't really supported by anyone and didn't violate your personal set of ethics, and you chose the former, your ideology is by definition artificially limiting.

It's not just about ethics, although that is and always should be a factor. Working against your own ethics is unprofitable in the long term, because you're helping create the world you don't want to live in, and it costs more to fix a problem than to not create it in the first place. The simple truth is that going with Microsoft will save you money today but when the technology you are using is abandoned with no path forward and you have to rewrite anyway, you will find yourself losing money in the long term with the Microsoft option.

Maybe you work in software or as a sysadmin and have the luxury of being the equivalent of a vegan when it comes to operating systems. Not every does or even cares to have that luxury and when you say "Microsoft is bad" as a blanket statement, you look really foolish.

You only look foolish to fools, and I couldn't care less. Those who forget the lessons of history are doomed to look like morons. Microsoft has fucked over its paying customers in the name of profit time and again, and becoming a Microsoft customer is therefore tantamount to signing up for a dry fucking.

Re:Otellini: The guy no one payed attention to (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42042691)

It is an artificially limiting ideology. If you were given two products one that worked though it potentially violated your personal set of ethics and the other took a lot of effort to get working, wasn't really supported by anyone and didn't violate your personal set of ethics, and you chose the former, your ideology is by definition artificially limiting.

It's not just about ethics, although that is and always should be a factor. Working against your own ethics is unprofitable in the long term, because you're helping create the world you don't want to live in, and it costs more to fix a problem than to not create it in the first place. The simple truth is that going with Microsoft will save you money today but when the technology you are using is abandoned with no path forward and you have to rewrite anyway, you will find yourself losing money in the long term with the Microsoft option.

Maybe you work in software or as a sysadmin and have the luxury of being the equivalent of a vegan when it comes to operating systems. Not every does or even cares to have that luxury and when you say "Microsoft is bad" as a blanket statement, you look really foolish.

You only look foolish to fools, and I couldn't care less. Those who forget the lessons of history are doomed to look like morons. Microsoft has fucked over its paying customers in the name of profit time and again, and becoming a Microsoft customer is therefore tantamount to signing up for a dry fucking.

You make a good point about going against your set of personal ethics contributing to building a society you don't want to live in, but I should clarify that I don't have the same burden as you in terms of a hatred for Microsoft. I don't care. I use Linux because for most tasks I do, my environment is setup just the way I want and it works faster than if I used Windows. Now, if I wanted to play video games, which I very rarely do anyway, then yeah I would switch to Windows likely without even considering using wine and all its imperfections.

I haven't forgotten Microsoft's past, but I don't feel whatever sting you've felt. I've never felt like I got "fucked over" possibly because pretty much any bit of software I want is a torrent/direct download from a free filesharing site away. As far as your hyperbole goes, that shit works with your neckbeard peers, but not me. They are a company and I expect they will try to make more profit. There are some things I can do with LaTeX that I don't know how to do or would take too long to setup in Microsoft Office even if the tools existed, but for other things, LaTeX's beamer class takes longer to setup and customize than a WYSIWYG presentation maker like PowerPoint. I simply use whatever tool suits my needs best.

Re:Otellini: The guy no one payed attention to (0)

Redmancometh (2676319) | about a year and a half ago | (#42038655)

Oh yeah let's root for the guys who have to have a foundry fab their processors. Intel has market dominance forba reason.. They're an IDM and control (most of) their factors of production. Lawl piledriver/jackhammer.

Otelliniotelliniotelli-niHO! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42036703)

Yodeling.

*Goes out and shoots some girl named Heidi in the head*

Never forgive, never forget (1)

ysth (1368415) | about a year and a half ago | (#42036815)

Remember the Alamo [wikipedia.org]

Otellini is a great CEO (5, Insightful)

dbc (135354) | about a year and a half ago | (#42036991)

I worked at Intel for 11 years and met Otellini a couple of times. First of all, he was a great guy. But much more on point, he was a clear and level-headed thinker who asked the right questions, and role-modeled the best of Intel culture in every way. He rescued Intel from the aftermath of the train wreck that was Craig Barrett, and rebuilt the company and restored the company culture.

Also note, Otellini was the first Intel CEO who came up through marketing. That was an important transition for the company in many ways, and the company is much better off for it.

Re:Otellini is a great CEO (1)

Kergan (780543) | about a year and a half ago | (#42037465)

Also note, Otellini was the first Intel CEO who came up through marketing. That was an important transition for the company in many ways, and the company is much better off for it.

I'm confused... How is leaving the lion's share of the market in mobile computing devices to ARM making Intel better off?

Re:Otellini is a great CEO (2)

dbc (135354) | about a year and a half ago | (#42037489)

Yes you are confused. I was saying that Intel has been better off for the last 7 years for having been run by a marketing guy instead of a "sand head" (physical chemist, in Intel-ese) and would have been better off with a marketing guy running the co for 10+ years.

Yes, the situation in mobile sucks. There are a host of reasons for that, mostly inherited by Otellini. The situation would suck harder if Barrett were still in charge. Otellini played the cards in his hand well.

Re:Otellini is a great CEO (1)

Tough Love (215404) | about a year and a half ago | (#42037757)

the situation in mobile sucks

No actually, it doesn't, we're finally ridding ourselves of the suffocating domination of Wintel.

Re:Otellini is a great CEO (2)

lowlymarine (1172723) | about a year and a half ago | (#42037827)

By what, exchanging it for suffocating domination by ARM and Google? Much better.

Re:Otellini is a great CEO (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year and a half ago | (#42041515)

By what, exchanging it for suffocating domination by ARM and Google? Much better.

Domination yes, suffocation no. They're not doing anything anticompetitive with Android; indeed, the anticompetitive things are being done to them by their competitors, like abuse of bad patents required for competition. (Apple was offered access to FRAND patents on a very reasonable basis; in exchange for their bullshit patents which they never should have been granted on obvious interface elements.)

Re:Otellini is a great CEO (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year and a half ago | (#42038403)

by intel making better profits by using their foundries for producing intel chips which give much better $$$ than if said foundries were producing arm chips.

don't be a fool. intel could be making the best fabbed arm chips in 6 months if they chose that x86 is dead. however the arm fabs can't switch other way.

Re:Otellini is a great CEO (2)

dkf (304284) | about a year and a half ago | (#42039299)

intel could be making the best fabbed arm chips in 6 months if they chose that x86 is dead

It'd take longer; Intel's fabs are a long way ahead of everyone else's and so ARM aren't yet producing layouts for that scale. Which would mean that Intel would have to rearchitect the Intel designs for their own fabs, which takes time.

however the arm fabs can't switch other way

Definitely true at the moment; the ARM licensees (ARM don't make stuff themselves; that's not their business model) are a generation or two behind Intel on the fab side of things. They compensate by having specialist hardware on their chips to do particularly important operations (e.g., handling the signal processing for LTE) so they can get away with less raw CPU power. It's a different approach that is very relevant for mobile and embedded markets.

Right now, I expect Intel to continue to dominate in desktop and server markets (i.e., anywhere where you can get power easily) and ARM and their licensees to dominate in mobile and embedded (where the power budget is critical and the ability to combine with custom on-chip hardware invaluable).

Re:Otellini is a great CEO (1)

dbc (135354) | about a year and a half ago | (#42043609)

Those are naive assertions. Intel's production logic processes are tuned for speed, not low power consumption. That doesn't mean that the fab chemists don't have a dozen low-power processes in their hip pocket that they have demonstrated in the development fab that could be rolled out to production fabs in a matter of a few months. Processes more suitable to going after ARM market share. As to doing a new layout -- Intel has the tools and the people to simply "make it so".

Intel fabs run at max capacity on the highest gross margin per wafer designs they have available. The numbers just don't add up today for Intel doing something other than Atom.

Re:Otellini is a great CEO (2)

dbc (135354) | about a year and a half ago | (#42043483)

Yes. Somebody who gets it. Intel looks at gross margin per wafer. They know pretty much exactly how many wafers they can run through a fab in a year. They can easily calculate the gross margin per wafer for any product. For a while when I was at Intel, Intel was a huge buyer of outside fab capacity -- any project that wanted to run in Intel fab had to show that their gross margin per wafer justified being on it. Otherwise, the project was told to "go fish" -- for fab. And they did, or they shut down.

Re:Otellini is a great CEO (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42038077)

He rescued Intel from the aftermath of the train wreck that was Craig Barrett, and rebuilt the company and restored the company culture.

Yep, and he closed the acquisition where I worked few months after replacing Barrett. What a guy. After several years of missed opportunities, because of a bad corporate strategy, Otellini cuts the losses by letting us go. Man, we had the best cards on our hands, but weren't allowed to play them. Hooray for corporate acquisitions; the fastest way to reduce a successful startup to a smoking crater.

Re:Otellini is a great CEO (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42042583)

this clear thinking resulting in the acquisition of Mcafee?

Cringely says the board should fire themselves too (1)

ansak (80421) | about a year and a half ago | (#42043717)

Does anyone who Knows have anything to say about Bob Cringely's analysis [cringely.com] of this departure?

just wondering, hangning up and listening...ank

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...