Intel Warns Asia Over Linux Plan

rimbaldi writes "Intel's CEO, Craig Barrett recently warned the Chinese government that their attempt to create regional standards for computers and communications, including standards using Linux-based software, may be doomed to failure, since 'such a strategy might protect local companies and markets in the short term, [but] it would make it more difficult for Asian companies to participate in world markets.' This is in reaction to earlier Slashdot-covered stories about an Asian software consortium and China disallowing foreign software."

Comments

You've got to keep her in your pocket.

[typobox43]

If there was any doubt that Microsoft all but owns Intel, let it be resolved now.

Re:You've got to keep her in your pocket.

[SatanicPuppy]

I don't see how embracing an open implementation (Linux) of a 30 year old industry standard (Unix) is going to keep someone locked out of a global marketplace. Seventy percent of the world server market isn't exactly a technical backwater.

I have to agree; the only possible reason for intel to take this stance is money from M$. Otherwise, they only stand to gain by other countries embracing the first *nix to be specifically designed to be compatible with Intel chips.

Re:You've got to keep her in your pocket.

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah, I don't think M$ owns Inhell, I think it's more like "We'll scratch your back if you'll scratch ours"

Re:You've got to keep her in your pocket.

[penguinlust]

There is actually a lot of doubt. Intel has been trying for years to find ways around Microsoft. They have just failed badly like most non processor related projects.

Intel has other problems with china trying to build its own OS for its own CPU chip. Its the CPU chip if they really have one.

This is all part of an even bigger picture. Corperate america is hitting a wall and hitting it hard. I saw the same thing at Motorola. The Asain market has been the next big thing for close to 10 years now and it has never appeared.

The Chinese government has required companies to place facilities in china in order to get a foot hold. This has resulted in the transfer of all sorts of knowledge to china. Including silicon technology. It looks more an more like american companies are going to bleed america dry of jobs it get a new foot hold that the china has just said will not appear at all.

If if was craig barret I would be oh shitting very heavily right now.

You can also thank our government for this. They have let it happen. But it is after all the government bought by the corperations, of the corperations and for the corperations.

The bill to ammend the constitution will soon be sponsored by corperate america to make it crime to say this.

Re:You've got to keep her in your pocket.

[Frymaster]

the only possible reason for intel to take this stance is money from M$

well, there is intel's profits to be concerned with. if china rolls out it's own chipset, national protectionism and government consumption will make it a non-trivial contender.

of course, this will almost assuredly never happen because this is exactly the sort of thing the wto has been working on abolishing. setting up national tariff and subsidy barriers to protect domestic industry is much "worse" for the economy than allowing fledgling local technology to be crushed by the existing, near-monopolistic, foreign multinational. duh!

Re:You've got to keep her in your pocket.

[Anonymous Coward]

And this is "funny" how?

Re:You've got to keep her in your pocket.

[EzInKy]

There is actually a lot of doubt. Intel has been trying for years to find ways around Microsoft. They have just failed badly like most non processor related projects.

An open source software system like Linux is the way around Microsoft, particulary for a company such as Intel whose primary business is hardware.

The Chinese government has required companies to place facilities in china in order to get a foot hold. This has resulted in the transfer of all sorts of knowledge to china. Including silicon technology. It looks more an more like american companies are going to bleed america dry of jobs it get a new foot hold that the china has just said will not appear at all.

Though I have no love for the Chinese government it only makes sense for a nation to make their economy benefits from technology by creating jobs for its citizens and not be bled dry feeding another nation's workers.

Re:You've got to keep her in your pocket.

[haruchai]

I don't think that the WTO has the clout to strongarm China. They are so big that and their labor so cheap that they can fight back against just about any economic threat. The only way I could see them knuckling under is if the rest of the world sides against them. If they were to establish a free trade agreement with India, we'd be royally screwed.

Re:You've got to keep her in your pocket.

[SpaceLifeForm]

Though I have no love for the Chinese government it only makes sense for a nation to make their economy benefits from technology by creating jobs for its citizens and not be bled dry feeding another nation's workers.

s/Chinese/American/

Re:You've got to keep her in your pocket.

[Taco Cowboy]

The Chinese government has required companies to place facilities
in china in order to get a foot hold.

This gotta be NEWS to me and MANY OTHERS who have done lots of business in China.

I sell goods to China, as well as buy things from them, and my only facility there is a trading house.

That's it.

No technology transfer, no silicon clean room, nada.

And in the over decade-and-a-half that I've been dealing with China, at no time they require moi to set up any "facility" to aid in the "transfer of technology" in their soil.

Of course, if I want to do that, they would be happy.

Sometimes I wonder if /. posters know the things they talk about to begin with.

Re:You've got to keep her in your pocket.

[pmz]

You can also thank our government for this. They have let it happen. But it is after all the government bought by the corperations, of the corperations and for the corperations.

A very knee-jerk response about the economy. Of course we have the goverment to thank, in part, for the economic problems we are seeing. However, we are also in the midst of a natural business cycle.

1) Government taxation and regulations increase the costs of operating a business in the USA to unsustainable levels relative to other parts of the world. Tarriffs only postpone the inevitable consequences of this imbalance, during which the inevitable outcome of this fantasy gets only more severe. So, companies are jumping ship, and I cannot blame them. If the federal government wants to screw businesses and their employees to futher its own means and ends, then the government is doing a truly terrible disservice to its citizens. This is why a Democrat/Green administration is not a good thing for the USA.

2) Subtle and not-so-subtle corruption in the government has created unnatural and unsustainable business models, such as pork-barrel contracting, that funnel money away from important projects into dubious politically-motivated projects. Other projects, such as social security, create pots of gold that are too tempting for the government to manage properly. The people in the USA are way overtaxed--by at least 15%. Republicans and Democrats are both very good at perpetuating these things.

You know there really aren't many political parties left...but it is fairly clear that someone else needs to take the reins. This is very important for the long-term sustainability of not only the USA's economy but also the sustainability of Freedom in the USA. Most every time the government takes control, the People lose opportunity and freedom of choice. They lose the very things that brought us from log cabins in the 1700s to three-bedroom homes with central AC in the last few decades.

3) The late 1990's saw an overwhelming surge surrounding the Internet and IT industry that overshot itself and now needs to rest for a while. This is perfectly normal and not unexpected. While difficult, it forces people to recognize that the fat days of the Internet boom were good while they lasted but it is time to move on to other things. This may even mean moving onto things outside the IT industry (god forbid) or creating new opportunities within the IT industry leveraging the bruises from a couple years back.

So, no politician will save us from the last few years. Get over it, and, in the meantime, you can enjoy ubiquitous connectivity to the WWW using your 2.4GHz PC with RAM that you bought for pennies/megabyte.

Re:You've got to keep her in your pocket.

[falsified]

Nah, I don't think M$ owns Inhell

Okay, man, you really overdid it.

Re:You've got to keep her in your pocket.

[penguinlust]

I am not sure if you ment to say you have no love for the american or chinese government.

Either way I believe the Chinese goverment has every right to encorage the developement of a chinese version of Linux. I do not believe any american / european developer can understand some of the intricacies of using the chinese character sets. Only they can do it correct for themselves and Linux is the stepping stone to the solution and still maintain good connectivity to other systems in the world.

My problem is with big corperations in America. They cannot understand or really compete in the chinese market. China looks like it is taking market economy stance for its future but it is still a communist country. The chinese government hates the rest of the world and will take everything sent to china in the end.

Big corperations are at a stand still if they cannot find new markets. Literally Microsoft, Intel, IBM, etc. have no where to go but down. Thier new markets are actually non existent because the people do not have the money/capital to participate with these companies.

In the mean time, the CEOs are all telling each other we have to do this and giving jobs to these countries. It is and will remain futile to do so. In a few years americans, and europeans by the way, will look around and try to figure out what they did wrong.

If you want to change this there are two ways. First start voting for canidates for office that are not paid for by the corperations. Pretty hard to do today. And secondly simply do not by anything labeled "Made in China" or "Made in Malaysia". Wall mart will go out of business despite the american image they try to portray. Also as a part of this we need to find out which companies have transfered support services to other countries and boycott them.

Re:You've got to keep her in your pocket.

[penguinlust]

The next question has to be wether you are big enough for them to care for. Require was probably to big a word but for particular industries the pressure can be extreme if you want a piece of the chinese pie.

I have been of periphery of projects and have worked with groups in many other countries. I have not had very much direct contact but twice I dealt with aspects. Once we were purchasing some pieces and this was not problem. The second was trying to expand our technology into China.

First they wanted to pay nothing at all for the product. Second they wanted all the source code, schematics, etc." for not money up front. After several years of this crap the company spent lots of bucks for no return.

I do not know what you are trading in China. It is irrelevant to the big picture. Dollars are streaming to China for cheap labor and even more cheap plastic junk. They can neither afford to buy american products nor do they want them for the most part. The problem is and will remain gib american corperations must grow and connot. They must try to get into new markets even if they do not really exist and does not good for either side.

Our children will look back and wonder how we could screw up so badly.

If you are importing cheap junk then I am boycotting you. If you are selling out american workers then I am boycotting you. Please let me know what your product is so I can put it on the do not buy list.

At some point in time americans must realize they cannot expect to be paid to produce products and expect to get everything in return for cheap. It just does not work that way.

Re:You've got to keep her in your pocket.

[penguinlust]

I agree with most of what you say. The only problem is that pure capitalism does not work. The result is always periods of expansion for the wealthy and then the poor schmucks tearing it apart at some point in time. In the past revolutions were posible. Today most governments can purchase the firepower to prevent this from happening.

I agree that we are over taxed and it needs to be reduced. I do not believe that is what is contributing to the move offshore. We have build an econonic system in this country where the corperation and its success are placed above all else. The reality is that coperations can only grow so big and then they have no place to go. But they still have to grow to placate investors.

Then we place an oranization in the middle such as the WTO and give them power to dick with the economy everywhere. Lets face it its power is driven by capitalism which recognizes the corperation as above all else.

This brings on companies suing countries for banning their products. What about the case of (I think it was Similac) suing african countries for this reason. Mothers conviced by advertising this was better for their babies were watering it down because they could not afford full price.

What about Steffi Graff all broken heated because she was accused of owning a sweat shop in china. Whe had not idea of working coditions in the Nike factory.

What about whole towns in america but out to pasture because their factory was moved off shore. And not the service industries have not compensated them for their loss of income. Do not give me that bull shit.

Our government is a mish mash of stupid self intrest people and laws. It is the governments job to protect the people. Sometimes it means militarily. Sometimes it means from internal self centered scum bags. But then that is most of the polititions and the CEOs / corperations that are paying them.

The good of a country and the good of a company are two different things. China understands this very well and our government are jerkin themselvs.

Re:You've got to keep her in your pocket.

[BSD Yoda]

The only problem is that pure capitalism does not work

No, actually it does work, its when you screw with it that it breaks down.

I agree that we are over taxed and it needs to be reduced. I do not believe that is what is contributing to the move offshore.

Personal income taxes may not be contributing, but Corporate taxes surely are. Since, in the end, all Corporate taxes and expenses are paid by consumers, Corporate income tax should be 0%. Try ECO101 for an explanation.

Re:You've got to keep her in your pocket.

[penguinlust]

All taxes contribute to the end price of products. We get paid more to cover the taxes we pay. If corperations were taxed and not people we would be paid less but effectively have the same spending power. What our current system does is support a whole load of societal free loaders known as personal tax accountants and a few hundred thousand IRS employees. Simple do the math.

And no uncontroled pure capitalism does not work. In order to live in a society there has to be a benefit. Pure capitalism is always an all for me situation and uncontroled leads to chaos.

Our consitution dictates a nation that is of the people, for the people and by the people. That is in reality no longer true. Political campaigns are paid for by big money. Right or wrong, if you pay for it in a capitalistic society you should expect to benifit more from it than anyone else. And it does happen.

Having said that, governments need to look at what they do very carefully. Ours does not. Everything is done pretty much willy nilly on a "look at me" or "shit, gotta cover my ass" basis. There is not continutity and reason to most of it.

Re:You've got to keep her in your pocket.

[BSD Yoda]

All taxes contribute to the end price of products.

Agreed.

We get paid more to cover the taxes we pay.

Run that by anyone who has worked in any general labor trade, manufacutring, etc. over the past 20 years. This is certainly not the case.

If corperations were taxed and not people we would be paid less but effectively have the same spending power.

Not sure if that's true, but a better scenario would be if people were taxed and not corporations. In the latter case, lower income strata are not forced to purchase higher-priced products to subsidize the corporate tax burden, yet the middle-class continue bear the greatest tax burden.

What our current system does is support a whole load of societal free loaders known as personal tax accountants and a few hundred thousand IRS employees. Simple do the math.

:)

Re:You've got to keep her in your pocket.

[penguinlust]

We get paid more to cover the taxes we pay.

Run that by anyone who has worked in any general labor trade, manufacutring, etc. over the past 20 years. This is certainly not the case.

That is actually part of my point. I have also worked in manufacturing on the assembly line. Spent a year working at little better than minimum wage butting IV tubes together for Cutter labs. That was when I decided I needed to get it together and go back to school. I have a pretty good idea what it cost to make an IV set. It is not even close to the price on a hospital bill. There are a lot of Corpertions who make big money on the pain society feels. I have no problem with not taxing a company that has no profit. I do think that correctly taxing a company will incourage more downward movement of revenue dollars. There will not be such a big reward for screwing the employees.

If corperations were taxed and not people we would be paid less but effectively have the same spending power. Not sure if that's true, but a better scenario would be if people were taxed and not corporations. In the latter case, lower income strata are not forced to purchase higher-priced products to subsidize the corporate tax burden, yet the middle-class continue bear the greatest tax burden. Whatever is done the middle class will continue to provide most of the tax dollars to the government simply because they will buy products representing a higher percentage of their income. Either they give it this way or they give it as a yearly income tax. It all costs the same. What is different as I said is the overhead will be reduced. Government should not encourage scavangers.

I think the problem is much higher that normally recognized. As far as personal income taxes go corperations also pay a high price to comply with government rules. After all they pay to have all the with holding accounting and reporting done. Most americans do not realize that the corperation also pays at least as much social security as is taken out of an employees pay check.

Either way they cost of taxation comes back to the empoyers and they pass it back to the customers. Decreasing overhead always helps on the bottom line. Moving personal income taxes to corperate taxes will eliminate a large portion of over head.

Re:You've got to keep her in your pocket.

[BSD Yoda]

I have no problem with not taxing a company that has no profit. I do think that correctly taxing a company will incourage more downward movement of revenue dollars. There will not be such a big reward for screwing the employees.

I think I follow your reasoning. You're saying that the taxes inspire investment in business/internal development, which has the side effect of improving conditions for employees or creating the need for more employees, thereby improving general working conditions. I'll buy that. Although taken to extreme, this results in lower aggregate stock profits, which affects pensions and 401K(or other retirement plans) adversely over long periods of time.

Moving personal income taxes to corperate taxes will eliminate a large portion of over head.

Not sure I completely agree with you yet, but I get your point. This brings me to my favorite argument: elimination of all state and federal income taxes, and replace them with a 20% federal and 5% state sales tax on everything. And with this I challenge you to take the thread further OT :)

Re:You've got to keep her in your pocket.

[cluckshot]

To be specific, Microsoft and Intel have a relationship like a married couple. Microsoft keeps the planned obsolesence coming in OS stuff so that we demand more and more memory and more and more faster chips which actually do nothing for us. This was disclosed in the Anti-Trust discussions recently.

Nothing terrifies Intel more than having to rely on the quality and speed of their chips to do their own selling. A little secret they don't want to tell you about is that for some time, the Software linking in Microsoft OS made clock speeds over 900 mHz essentially of no additional value. The only thing selling the faster chips was the forced obsolescence. Without MS you could buy a CPU for a $1 check and it would work great. Without MS you could buy 128 Meg in memory and be thrilled with performance. MS made you have to go up just to function with their OS. It really gave no additional value.

The Intel people are terrified of the $20 PC that could be built and serve the world if we can MS. One should note the abbreviation MS here could be used interchangably for the Medical Term Multiple Sclarosis. In both cases the term is analogous. The MS OS is doing to computers exactly what MS does to human physiology.

The cure for this disease is Linux which allows us to use the machine for what it was built for. Linux allows us to adapt and grow without the OS killing us.

We should also note that the best definition of the MS OS is that it is an Anti-Security System designed to place our machines under the control of others who want to extort money from us. Every day now we are seeing news stories where whole Government Offices are being crushed by the Virii and Worms that infest MS OS.

What we are not seeing is the absolutely larger story about our personal information being heisted by MS OS design and used to steal our identity and to commit crimes. Al Qaeda uses credit card fraud to finance itself a great deal. The numbers are given to it via access to accounts being processed in Pakistan and India. You no longer have to lift my wallet to steal my credit card and social Security numbers. All you have to do is work for TATA and others in Pakistan and India. There you need fear no FBI or State Police. There you can do this wholesale and with the blessing and funding of our American Government agencies.

At least with Linux you have some security and may use older machines to good effect

Re:You've got to keep her in your pocket.

[penguinlust]

I hope others are following our discussion and will chime in at some time.

Yes this could affect pensions plans including 401K. But looking over my 401K plans I hve been pretty much a looser for several years running and I think we need to take a closer look at this. I'll get to the sales taxation issue further down.

I actually think american businesses have screwed up royal by believing they should all go public. Going public rarely has had any relation to furthur building of a company. It has actually been more to allow the original investers to cash out quickly at others expenses. The late 90's were an exception but as seen this lead only to a big screw of investors. It has also incoraged bad practices ala Enron, Tyco and Worldcom.

The purpose of a business is to make money for sure. If it is done in a manor that hurts society in general it is the peoples right, through the government, to control it. This is the actuall reason why governments require a license to do business.

The other side of this is that at some time a business becomes just so large that it is impossible to grow in any realistic fashion. At that point in time the stock price will almost surely drop. After all the price of the stock after initial offering has no real basis in the companies ability to perform. A good company can be providing work and economic health for many employees and providing a large profit and its value will still drop according to the stock market.

I have forgotten the actual number but I believe I have recently seen a statistic that 60 or 70 percent of business in the US is actuall done through small business. This is a stagering sum that goes pretty much unnoticed by wall street. To actually reconize this would be to cut their power base in the market.

The point of all this is that I would like to see the ability for my 401K to direct a portion to a fund to support small business with loans. I think the small percentage interest I get there will probably out perform my current 401K posibilites. It should at least cut some of the fund managers getting big bucks for shoving the money from stock to stock (usually more than the profit on the sale of the stock).

As for the sales tax. I actually have no real problem with that. The one consequence is that it will definity place a heaver tax burden on the working poor. I think well fare is a necessary evil that should be minimized and doing this will probably increase it and it's influence.

I am also not sure how it will effect the taxes of the wealthy. While they are known for consicuous consuption it is often taken to places where they are not taxed by america. It could very well be a net loss here.

I think the tax problem needs to address the issues first of how to illiminate the need for taxes. First and foremost is a smaller government more focused and real issues. Secondly it is actually the governments job to see that no one entity can cause harm to the american nation and its people.

I take this to imply the world on a whole for the most part. This means that we should there, as well has here, be concerned that representitives of america do not cause harm anywhere.

I believe China and India are good examples of governments that place their own good over there peoples. China in particular have devalued their currency to the point where the lack of effecencies are irrelevant. We can send work over there for cheaper no matter what. Most of the workers still live in abject poverty while the government sucks of much of the money coming into the country.

This has the further consquence not of only of loss of jobs here, but also of loss of tax revenue to pay the expenses of people out of work. I also strongly believe these other countries have nothing to loss and will take all knowledge sent and force the american companies out very soon. The arabs did this with oil and China, India, etc. will do this with high tech. Net result in a co

Huh

[Anonymous Coward]

who woulda thought that this was Intel's stance on the position? China subsidizing the Dragon chip doesn't make Intel that happy.

Re:Huh

[ahfoo]

My thoughts exactly.
Really going out on a limb at this point for Intel to criticize China. The Dragon chip is one thing. I think the bigger issue that we're just starting to hear bits and pieces about over at eet is immersion lithography.
Intel is the lone voice of dissent swearing it's not going to work while IBM and Infineon keep coming up with reports on how great it is and how quickly ASML, Canon and Nikon are going to be bringing tools to market.
Meanwhile Infineon is getting all cozy making deals all over the place.

Re:Huh

[Trigun]

They just want to keep the Chinese as a cheap labour force. Prevent them from producing anything that isn't sold in a bargain bin, and you've doomed them to western dependance.

I for one welcome our new Chinese overlords.

Re:huh

[Lord Kholdan]

Is Intel pushing MS Windows now?

Intel > procs and chipsets > DRM > MS Windows

Propably not. They're just trying to prevent the dragon chip from becoming de facto standard for that marketplace.

Re:Huh

[Stargoat]

This is for obvious reasons. Intel has something to defend, namely its near monoploy. IBM would like to see nothing more than Intel find itself against a competator.

China has been looking for ways for a decade now to stick it to the US economy. Someone over there must think that they can have a measurable effect on world PC standards.

Re:huh

[Stargoat]

Intel has always pushed MS Windows. Don't you recall their alliance?

Re:Huh

[Stargoat]

China's own government is keeping the Chinese as a cheap labour force. Preventing strikes and non-government approved unions does that sort of thing.

Re:Huh

[Anonymous Coward]

Intel is BillG's bitch. They wouldn't have a clue how to play the Linux and Windows crowds against each other for their own benefit.

Short Intel.

Re:Huh

[Jack Comics]

"I for one welcome our new Chinese overlords." Too late. The Clinton administration already beat you to it.

Re:Huh

[Stargoat]

Jack Comics, You are a liar. It was Nixon, a Republican, who began trading with China. Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush have all renewed China's Most Favored Nations status.

Re:Huh

[Trigun]

But the world puts up with it because of the shitty, Dollar store trinkets that they produce. They start producing other things that can put a dent in the economy, then you can bet that there would be heavy pressure on their government to stop.

Also, at what point would the people stop being walked all over? Once China has a huge economy, capitalist, communist or otherwise, if the wealth is not spread a bit more than now (which has gotten better than ten years ago), the people just might wise up.

Re:Huh

[Read Icculus]

They have been sticking it to the US economy already. Since the yuan is not a free-floating currency, Chinese exporters are at an advantage compared to US exporters. They can flood our market with cheap goods and we on the other hand have to sell our exports in China at a high price. The result has been an ever increasing trade and current-account deficit for the US. The latest steps towards the Dragon Chip and a Red-Flag type OS are a very smart move indeed, and a continuation of a very effective economic policy on the part of the Chinese. I'd be worried too if I were Wintel. There's not really anywhere to go but down.

Re:Huh

[Stargoat]

Check out my journal.

http://slashdot.org/~Stargoat/journal

Re:Huh

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes u r rite their jus lyke amerika!

Re:Huh

[Anonymous Coward]

You are a liar.

I am not a crook!
At long last, sir, have you no decency!?

- Jack Comics

Re:Huh

[letxa2000]

Yeah... Clinton just gave them missile technology, that's all. No big deal.

Re:Huh

[Catbeller]

NO. He did NOT.

Don't get your news from AM talk radio.

Re:Huh

[Stargoat]

Hughes, the one's who gave the Chinese the technology in question, got permission in 1992 to sell the technology to China from the Bush Administration, not the Clinton Administration

Actually, they got it because they gave the GOP so much money in campaign contributions, they essentially bribed their way into doing it.

Get your facts straight. Catbeller has her's right.

Re:Huh

[penguinlust]

This is a very good summery of the problem. Thanks

Re:Huh

[I8TheWorm]

Yeah, better to get it from CNN, Fox News, or ABC|CBS|NBC.

You could choose from any of these links if you prefer.

I'm not party biased either way, but Clinton was the worst kind of liar... the one that does it and thinks he can get away with it by smiling a lot, and trying to divert attention.

Re:Huh

[penguinlust]

Actualy bush is the worst kind of liar. He does it because the truth has no effect on his beliefs. He is more than willing to distort the facts to meet his fiction.

Re:huh

[Aadain2001]

It's not an "alliance" by choice. Intel knows that Windows is on 95% of the desktops. All they have to do is write a few new subroutines to detect Intel chips and to degrade the system performance if they wanted to hurt Intel. Look at their recent adoption of AMD's 64 bit ISA. It's their way of telling Intel "You better do what we say, because we can always decide to help out your competition instead of you". There was a big lawsuit about this a while back where Bill directly threatened Barret if they didn't do what MS wanted. Hence why Barret is saying this. It's also part of the reason why one half of Intel is pushing Linux and another what's to hide the first half. They don't want to piss MS off.

Re:Huh

[Anonymous Coward]

But who are you going to feed the homeless pets to?

Re:Huh

[letxa2000]

Clinton did a lot of great things for this country.

Like what, exactly? I mean, really, what did he do? What is his legacy? Nothing particularly significant (in a political sense) happened during his terms. So what are all these great things he did?

Re:Huh

[Stargoat]

Clinton's administration stopped attempts on: Holland tunnel, Lincoln tunnel, George Washington Bridge, The Pope's life, and Millennium Weekend.

He caught the people responsible for: 1993 WTC, 1995 Guard Barracks, 1996 Khobar Towers, 1998 Embassy bombings.

He stopped the fighting in Bosnia far more effectively than Bush has done in Iraq.

When he left, the CIA and FBI were set up to fight against terrorism.

When Bush took over, he reversed course. He was looking for a conflict in Iraq. He wanted Saddam Hussein from day one. He told the CIA to shift focus from terrorism to nation building and all out war with Iraq.

Do you recall the GOP's fervor with which they attacked Clinton on terrorism? They thought he was making the stuff up. They attacked him on bombing a chemical plant in the Sudan. Now, Bush invades a country and can't find chemical weapons.

He had to post-war plan in either Iraq or Afghanistan.

Bush is a miserable failure and September 11th is his administration's fault.

Re:Huh

[Anonymous Coward]

You sir, are a dumbass.

Re:Huh

[Walter Wart]

>But the world puts up with it because of the
>shitty, Dollar store trinkets that they produce.
>They start producing other things that can put a
>dent in the economy, then you can bet that there
>would be heavy pressure on their government to
>stop.

Ignorance of history is comforting in the short term but suicidal in the long term. Let's just call America "The Land of the Lemmings". We heard exactly the same thing a few decades ago about Japan. And Taiwan. And Hong Kong. And Korea. And various countries in Western Europe if you want to go back a century and a half.

China has become the world's workshop. They are developing the infrastructure. They have the educated skilled workers where needed. Their industrial base is large and growing. As opposed to ours which is aging and shrinking. As a side note two guys I volunteer with at Fort Vancouver worked in the skilled metal trades as craftsmen and teachers most of their lives. In their considered opinion we don't have the human resources or physical plant to reindustrialize if (when) we need to. The US is a formerly industrialized country.

>Also, at what point would the people stop being
>walked all over? Once China has a huge economy,
>capitalist, communist or otherwise, if the wealth
>is not spread a bit more than now (which has
>gotten better than ten years ago), the people
>just might wise up.

It doesn't quite work that way. If anything it's the opposite. People with something want to keep it. It's people who don't have anything who make really strong demands. And the ones who punctuate their requests with gunfire are most often the ones who had something and lost it. Read Eric Hoffer's The True Believer for a nice thumbnail of the eponymous true believer who really gets mass movements started.

Singaporean and Japanese society exercised iron control over the behavior of their populations when times were good. This has slipped a little as things got worse. People were willing to accept control in exchange for wealth. Parallels can be drawn to the political upheavals in Britain around industrialization, the French Revolution and the recent war against the West waged largely by discontented Wahabite f**sticks.

Re:Huh

[letxa2000]

Clinton's administration stopped attempts on: Holland tunnel, Lincoln tunnel, George Washington Bridge, The Pope's life, and Millennium Weekend. He caught the people responsible for: 1993 WTC, 1995 Guard Barracks, 1996 Khobar Towers, 1998 Embassy bombings.

This is law enforcement, not a presidential legacy. Clinton had little, if anything, to do with it.

Where presidential decisions were made he passed on opportunities to take Bin Laden and failed to build a coalition to deal with Iraq decisively in 1998 when the world would have supported such action. His inaction regarding Bin Laden gave him the opportunity to support the 9/11 attacks. His failure to address Iraq when he should have left GWB with a situation that should've been cleaned up by the time he arrived on the scene.

I know Clinton didn't do anything to purposely screw the next president, but some of the saddest and most controversial events during this administration could have been avoided entirely if Clinton hadn't missed very significant opportunities.

He stopped the fighting in Bosnia far more effectively than Bush has done in Iraq.

Of course, the Bosnia intervention was, what, 8 years ago and Iraq was about 5 months ago? Let's see how Iraq is doing in 2011 before we make comparisons between the two. At this stage the two are apples and oranges.

When he left, the CIA and FBI were set up to fight against terrorism.

Yeah, and Bush broke it all in 8 month. All the critiques of problems in the intelligence community that came to light after 9/11 were all Bush's fault. Right. Keep telling yourself that.

That said, I don't blame the FBI's or CIA's failure on either Bush or Clinton. The FBI was more investigative than prevention, and the CIA never really fully adapted to the new post-USSR environment. But if anything, it was made clear in the post-9/11 reports that the CIA was depending less on human intelligence and more on electronic intelligence in part to avoid dealing with individuals or organizations of "questionable moral standing." Where do you think the blame of that should fall?

He was looking for a conflict in Iraq. He wanted Saddam Hussein from day one.

Try re-reading the news for the first 8 months of Bush's presidency. There was no significant talk of Iraq at all. Nothing. Even after 9/11 the target was Afghanistan, not Iraq. If Bush was all hell-bent on taking out Iraq I'm sure some evidence could have been fabricated blaming or linking Iraq to it. Quite to the contrary, Bush has gone on the record as saying no such evidence exists.

They thought he was making the stuff up. They attacked him on bombing a chemical plant in the Sudan.

Ahhh, you mean the site that has long-since been confirmed as being an aspirin factory? Even I was skeptical of it being an innocent factory at the time, but the U.N. itself has long since concluded it was indeed a civil plant producing, apparently, aspirins. I guess Clinton had bad intel, it can happen to anyone. But don't blame the Republicans for jumping on his case. The Republicans turned out to be RIGHT, and the U.N. concluded as much.

Now, Bush invades a country and can't find chemical weapons.

At least the target was a dictator and not an aspirin factory. If mistakes are going to be made I'd rather take out a dictator than an aspirin factory.

If Bush knew there was no threat in Iraq and sent us to war anyway, he should be impeached. But so far there is no evidence of that. There's maybe been some bad intel, or perhaps 5 months just isn't enough time to completely search a desert country the size of California. But in a worst-case scenario we have one less ruthless dictator in the middle east. With Clinton's actions we have one less aspirin factory.

Bush is a miserable failure and September 11th is his administration's fault.

Damn, I've been trolled.

Re:Huh

[Nehalem]

Clinton was a disgrace in every way. Bush isnt' the greatest either but I certainly trust him far more than that idiot. Your arguments about the fight on terrorism are rediculous. The 90's in every way hurt this country. We were enjoying things so much that we forgot things like borders, security, etc. exist. As far as the chinese government goes I have to ask why Clinton, being so security minded, didn't do anything about the theft of our nuclear secrets. Then supposedly there is evidence that he botched things up with Bin Laden (he wasn't even hiding much then) I think both parties have BIG problems but I look no farther than to California when I want to know how bad a fully liberal, progressive can screw a place. More businesses will leave, debt will fester, and California will fall (unless somebody with sense intervenes, no I'm not saying Arnold). Talk have killing the chicken that produces the eggs. I don't know why I responded, it's obvious that you have no neutrality on this issue and lack the sense to look at any other side. Your just another guy reading from a script.

Re:Huh

[Brushfireb]

"Bush is a miserable failure and September 11th is his administration's fault."

Come on man, turn off PBS. Bush isnt satan, he isnt ruining america, he isnt a "miserable failure", as you put it (but actually stole from gephardt), he just has a different style at getting things done than you prefer. However, to try and blaim Sept 11 on him is trivializes those who died on that day. Not to be trite, but you should be fucking ashamed to think that way.

Re:Huh

[benjamindees]

He also began trading with Russia. I just saw a video of the kitchen debate recently. It's hilarious: Nixon and Kruschev arguing with each other over who can make better toasters. I guess Nixon won.

Re:Huh

[jmorris42]

Yes, of course you are correct. We should always trust eveything some nitwit claims on the Net. Nixon opened up trade with China. Couldn't be bothered to fact check that statement before shouting "LIAR" at the top of your lungs.

The archives of PBS's NewsHour differs, with this quote from President Clinton (a dubious source to be sure....):

"PRESIDENT CLINTON: I have decided, as all my predecessors have since 1980, to extend Most Favored Nation status to China for the coming year. Every Republican and Democratic President since 1980 has made the same decision."

Other sources put the year as 1979, either way it appears to be something the other silly Democrat of the late 20th Century started. Nixon normalized diplomatic relations with the People Republic of China.

And remember that MFN status was an adhoc thing renewed on a regular basis until Clinton pushed through a Permanant MFN status during his administration. In other words it was a carrot dangled in front of the Chinese tyrants to encourage change, but Clinton changed that. Not suprising from the traitor who sold/allowed to be sold classified material in exchange for a few lousy campaign contributions.

Re:Huh

[Guppy06]

"It was Nixon, a Republican, who began trading with China."

And it was Clinton, a Democrat, that signed the bill giving China "permanent normal trade relations" status. What's your point?

Re:huh

[mbourgon]

Heck, they may become the only place to buy a non-DRM'd machine. Looks like I'll own a completely China-made system pretty soon. (My current machine's chip was made in Malaysia)

Re:Huh

[Anonymous Coward]

However, to try and blaim Sept 11 on him is trivializes those who died on that day

And who would you suggest we blame? Perhaps we should blame the Air Force, for not following the guidelines set up long ago regarding the interception and escorting of hijacked airliners?

Perhaps we should blame the CIA for turning a deaf ear to their allies and their attempts to warn the US?

Perhaps we should realize that someone fucked up in a big, bad and ugly way on that day. Of course, nothing will ever be done about it. Blame will never be laid out. And do you know wny? Because the Bush Administration won't let it happen.

Personally, I blame the Air Force, and as the President is the Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces, that blame climbs the ladder to him.

Re:Huh

[letxa2000]

Perhaps we should blame the Air Force... Perhaps we should blame the CIA... Perhaps we should realize that someone fucked up in a big

And perhaps we should realize that the problems could just as easily be attributed to a decade of inaction after the fall of the USSR, a failure to adapt to new realities, a failure to use human intelligence sources just because they are less than "reputable". And perhaps we could just as easily attribute it to Clinton who failed to nab Bin Laden when the Sudan offered.

You can point a lot of fingers if you want. The truth is no single person is to blame. A lot of small mistakes were made that lead to a tragedy. Not surprisingly that's usually the case in *most* tragedies. The Titanic, Pearl Harbor, 9/11. Lots of "what ifs"--any of which could have prevented the tragedy, but opportunities were missed.

But if you want to blame a president, keep in mind that just last week CNN reported that planning for 9/11 stretched back to 1996. So if you want to blame a president who should we blame? Clinton who had between 4 or 5 years to deal discover and/or deal with the plot, or Bush who had 8 months?

Personally, I don't think finger pointing is worthwhile when so many things went wrong. But if you're trying to condemn Bush or excuse Clinton I think the facts are against you.

Re:Huh

[metamatic]

Once China has a huge economy, capitalist, communist or otherwise, if the wealth is not spread a bit more than now (which has gotten better than ten years ago), the people just might wise up.

Like in America, you mean?

Re:Huh

[Sivaram_Velauthapill]

Wealth discrepancy in China is far greater now than ever. The industrialists are all rich while the farmers are poor. Cities are being flooded with poor farmers from rural areas. If anything, the gap is spreading.

Sivaram Velauthapillai

Re:Huh

[Anonymous Coward]

That's nice... maybe if morons like Starr (r) didn't bother Clinton with all the bs he would have delt with it... but hey... it was fun talking on FOX about his penis and how he got sucked off.. For 3 years I didn't need porn at all... just turn on the TV... to bad it wasn't my type of a women... it be really a kickass thing... but I have imagination... Monica looks real different in my mind... please explain that one... same people who are blaming Clinton for 911 are screaming for rest to let Bush do whatever he wants... yet same people who were supporting bs that was done with Clinton... (r)

SK

Re:Huh

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know who said it but "it is better to remain silent and appear a fool than open one's mouth and remove all doubt"

Re:Huh

[I8TheWorm]

Are you suggesting Clinton wasn't like that? The same man who looked straight into the camera and said "I never had sexual relations with that woman." ?

Let's not forget that no Presidential term ever had so many associates and firms connected with the White House plead guilty to so many crimes, nor had so many illegal campaign contributions. Nor had so many witnesses in criminal investigations associated with the White House die under suspicious circumstances.

Clinton lied on TV (60 Minutes) about Gennifer Flowers, then later admitted to his affair in his deposition. Clinton lied about dodging the draft on ABC's Nightline, only to have to admit later that he did get a draft notice in 1969. Currently, Congress is investigating why the President granted waivers for Loral Corporation to assist China in strategically significant missile launches. Clinton announced in his 1991 campaign acceptance speech "When the ripoff artists looted our S&Ls, the President was silent. In a Clinton administration, when people sell their companies and their workers and their country down the river, they'll get called on the carpet." Can you say Whitewater? How about how Clinton firing the Travel Office chief when ol' BIlly was investigated for misuse of the office, then appointing a long time friend to the office instead. After all that, he had the FBI and IRS accuse Billy Dale (former Travel Office chief) of embezzlement and frand. Dale was later acquited.

This is the guy you're suggesting was more honest than Bush is now? Get real...

Re:Huh

[I8TheWorm]

If you need some education regarding Clinton's inability to tell the truth, see this post...

Better yet, do a Google search on Clinton lies... you'll get some Hillary in there as well.

And I am not biased. I never suggested that Bush was honest. RTFP. I'm only pointing out the one sided bashing going on. Bush is evil, but Clinton was ok, couldn't be further from the truth.

Re:Huh

[SSR]

lying about sex when your job is NOT about sex is not nearly as bad as lying about government work when you work in the government a-la Bush senior saying he "was out of the loop" concerning the Iran -Contra affair, when Casper Wienberger has notes to the contrary, not only was he in the meetings, he was for the Arms for Hostages deal!!!

a lie is a lie is a lie, NOT!

Re:Huh

[penguinlust]

I have never suggested Clinton did not do a lot of really crappy stuff. I have suggested that other presidents were also not squeeky clean. We just need to look at the big picture and assign the real blame to the real people as well as credit.

I do believe that our current president is worse. At least Clinton knew what he was doing was wrong. Bush believes in things, makes up the circumstacnes to support it and then believes his own backwards logic.

He started out totaly ineffectual and got hit peepee wacked badly over it. He is a person with absolutly no middle ground and reacts without thinking. Because 9/11 was occomplished by a bunch of muslims then all are at fault. He chooses to pick on easy targets first.

He is finding out that Sadam was an easy target. A country that is totaly muslim, and has all predujices against america of the 9/11 perpetrators, is not an easy target to fully concure.

He lied to us from the start about the cost of the Iraq war, he has lied to us about the WMDs, he has pissed of the rest of the world with his arrogance. Now the american people are starting to ask questions about the cost of the war.

He is still making patriotic speaches in the U.N. that will get him no where. Clinton admited he could not keep his dick in his pants. So the fuck what. When Bush admits he has lied to world about much more important stuff I will consider anything he has to say in the future.

I admit he did bad things with the FBI. Well Bush is doing bad things with information form the CIA and I consider that worse. And what about appointing friends. What ahout Ashcroft. This is a man that his own state elected a dead man instead of. Can this be good?

No politition is honest. That is the plain and simple fact of america today. If they are they will not last long.

Re:Huh

[I8TheWorm]

Ummm... you didn't read this post... by I8TheWorm (645702) on Tuesday September 23, @07:41AM (#7032531)

If you think all Clinton lied about was a hummer in the oval office, you've been living under a rock.

Re:Huh

[I8TheWorm]

This is a man that his own state elected a dead man instead of

WTF? I live in Texas and have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

I also agree that Bush hasn't been honest. I also said in an earlier post that I'm not a huge fan of his either, but that someone along the way compared Clinton to him and had decided all Clinton was guilty of was lying about Lewinsky.

Looks like we do agree about both Presidents. And if it were up to me, there wouldn't be a party system.. just a bunch of candidates with opinions. And any opportunity to be a career politician would be eliminated.

Re:Huh

[penguinlust]

Ashcroft was a canditate in Missouri.

The next question is how do people start changing the system. I have recently moved to San Diego due to my previous position being moved off shore. I look at the recall here as as a fiasco but maybe there can be some good from it also.

But again, it is the candidates with money that are at the forefront. I am tempted to vote for the porn queen but probably will vote for Arnold. I do not think that he will be much better but he is basically middle of the road in the directions that more reflect my concerns. At least things will be different and that can't be all that bad.

Re:Huh

[I8TheWorm]

I thought you were still talking about Bush, rather than Ashcroft.

It is definitely a system that needs overhauling. The problems in getting that done are immense though.

1. Nobody wants to vote themselves out of a job, so you have to dig to find candidates that are responsible
2. Those candidates will be obscure, and have no money behind them, so you'd have to work on getting their name out into the public
3. Unless you are related to Bill Gates or Ross Perot, you can't afford the advertising campaigns, so even more legwork in getting support or getting the media to host open debates

It seems anyone with the ability to change the system, i.e. the politicians that are in it or trying to get in it, and the corporations/wealthy folk who support them financially, have no vested interest in changing it at all. Hell, maybe getting all the /.ers to vote in a particular direction could sway an election or two.. I dunno. It's a "where to start" problem.

Re:Huh

[BSD Yoda]

Great comeback! Every time someone exposes Clinton for what he was (the worst president in the history of the United States, whose bad policy and incredibly poor decision-making will harm this country for decades) there is a minor revolt on /. Most notably, Clintons' non-response to the terrorist acts of the '90s and decimation of the American millitary make him the most singularly responsible individual for the attacks of September 11th, but I'm sure you think it had something to do with ballots in Florida...

Re:Huh

[BSD Yoda]

Well, something he did was convince school-age children that blowjobs were not sexual relations. But that won't have any long-term negative effects I'm sure....

Re:Huh

[BSD Yoda]

That said, I don't blame the FBI's or CIA's failure on either Bush or Clinton. The FBI was more investigative than prevention, and the CIA never really fully adapted to the new post-USSR environment. But if anything, it was made clear in the post-9/11 reports that the CIA was depending less on human intelligence and more on electronic intelligence in part to avoid dealing with individuals or organizations of "questionable moral standing." Where do you think the blame of that should fall?

Should be obvious: SCO

Re:Huh

[penguinlust]

This is all very true but I'd like to see anybody get the /.ers to go in a coordinated direction. That would be worth the time to try.

I think the problem is both easy and hard at the same time. Money always talks. Little pieces of it doing the same thing add up to big money also. If we can get americans to agree something is bad and support a boycott things can change rapidly.

My current best pet project is a boycott of chinese products. Well, actually pretty much anything from asia. I recently read something about some mexican workers that were stunned when they found some to the mexican trinkets they were selling had "made in china" stamped on them. I am also trying to boycott any company sending work to china.

If you could get 1 percent of the american population to participate in this companies like wall mart and that crowd will take immediate notice. This would probably mean at least a 2 or 3 percent drop in profits.

Re:Huh

[I8TheWorm]

I'm with you there. With China playing the military buildup game, stealing missile secrets, and visibly trying to take a chunk out of our economy (which is fair, but doesn't mean I have to like it), I won't buy a thing that has Made In China on it, which makes it difficult to purchase items, actually.

I also spend a lot of conversation with friends about being active politically. Any time there's a strong issue I remind them about how easy it is to contact their local reps, and how easy it is to research the issues and candidates during elections.

The sad truth is less than 20% of the people vote. Even with the sorry excuses for reps we have had for some time in D.C., people still don't get out and vote. Increasing that number would make a huge difference.

In other news,

[gergi]

Bill Gates resumed Craig Barrett's weekly allowance.

Re:In other news,

[Bemopolis]

It may be bad form to comment on a sig, but the actual Franklin quote is

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

Re:In other news,

[JacobO]

Don't blame gergi for something this Ben Franklin guy said. He's obviously just not as elloquent as the founding father.
:-)

Re:In other news,

[ArsonSmith]

if you didn't notice it wasn't quoted. I am sure it could be a paraphrase of the actual quote.

Re:In other news,

[Dalcius]

This really had me thinking for a minute.

Below, Sony and Intel were mentioned as pushing content rights management.

Here, Intel is pushing against China abandoning the proprietary software market.

Now, as we all know, most big companies don't bat an eyelash unless they think it'll make them some money. I'd be interested to hear any theories fellow Slashdotters have on the motivations here.

Behind the scenes activity? I'm not that cynical yet, and I don't tend to buy into conspiracy theories, so I'll write this one off.

The "wintel duo" theory could be behind the whole China thing, e.g. if China goes with Linux and moves away from bloated commercial software, Intel doesn't get as much revenue in high-end processors to keep the new version of Windows going with it's ump-teen dozen services enabled by default.

I can't think of a link at the moment, but Sony might be interested in keeping content distributors happy since Sony's media players depend on them. Then again, Sony isn't the little kid on the block, they have plenty of pull. I'll think on this some more.

But then we come to Intel, and for that matter, Microsoft. Why are these folks pushing content rights management? Sure, Microsoft will be happy restricting the user to MS products, and maybe introducing new DRM-formats is one way to do that, but... that doesn't seem like it'll be enough.

And what about Intel? What kind of benefit do they get from all this?

Re:In other news,

[mpe]

Here, Intel is pushing against China abandoning the proprietary software market.

With the claim that it would be damaging to China's domestic industry. When it's more likely that it's the proprietary software market, especially that involving foreign companies, which is damaging to China's domestic industry.

It makes sence..

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean.. who would want to lock himself into a market consisting of 1/8 of the world population!?.. ;) .. Gimme a break.. had it been Bulgaria or Sweden okay.. but China.. GL HF Intel!

Re:It makes sence..

[BigGar']

Acually it's closer to 1/6 of the word population and over three times the US population.

Re:It makes sence..

[Anonymous Coward]

hehe.. Well.. I didn't want to overestimate to avoid starting a correction thread but here you are.. ;) .. Also, I was thinking people were going to complain about "yeah but how many of them can afford a computer" so I went for an underestimation.. Still, I was going to write 1/8+ but the + fell behind.. anyway, 1/8 or 1/6 is still a big enough market to get the point across.. :)

Cheers...

Re:It makes sence..

[MrResistor]

My thought was:

"They'll be unable to interoperate with the reat of the world, just like Europeans can't watch American TV shows because they use PAL and not NTSC.

Oh, wait..."

It's quite shocking to me that the top guy at Intel is so fundamentally ignorant of the realities of modern computing and communication.

Re:It makes sence..

[AllUsernamesAreGone]

Do not make the mistake of confusing ignorance with tactics, or that this is aimed at China. This is aimed squarely at western companies who may be interested in working with or investing in China - the same western companies whose bosses will attach significant weight to anything that issues from the mouth of a well-known CEO.

This isn't an attempt to put china off directly, it's an attempt to put western companies off working with China and lending weight to China's approach (which would surely be disasterous for Intel and Microsoft if it encouraged more countries to implement home-grown hardware and software rather than Wintel supported systems).

Re:It makes sence..

[mabhatter654]

China, along with southeast asia and perhaps India too is more like 1/3-1/2 the population [and future poplulation]! They can pretty much do what they want. As far as competing, don't they MAKE all our stuff over there? I don't see them having any future compatibality problems with US...maybe we will have problems with them [them as the majority]

Re:It makes sence..

[fermion]

From the point of view of Intel and MS, it is even more dire. In response to NAFTA, China has set up a free trade zone in South East Asia, AFTA. There is enough interest in this trade zone to encompass about a third of the world population, and a significant portion of the world economy, especially in the manufacturing sector. If this area standardizes on a *nix with home-grown electronics, it may be very hard for Wintel vendors to sell to the region. And since China is the economic power of AFTA, it is assume that the other countries in the FTA would standardize on their computer product, which would likely be much cheaper than anything WinTel.

In addition, U.S. firms will have to be interoperable with AFTA if we hope to continue trading with them. As such, I would assume that U.S. firms would demand that vendors supply equipment interoperable with AFTA standards. If MS is not able to supply such an OS, then the firms will just have to go elsewhere.

Re:It makes sence..

[dalutong]

Another reply says 1/6th... and that's not even true.

1/5 is the closest single digit fraction. 1.3 billion Chinese/6.3 billion people in the world. India would hold the 1/6 spot.

Re:It makes sence..

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I thought about that after I posted it, but oh well, the point is made either way.

l8r

Re:It makes sence..

[whereiswaldo]

Think, people. This is classic FUD. You have

- fear (of losing competitive ability)
- uncertainty (is Intel right?)
- doubt (maybe we're not taking the right path)

And if Asia falls for it, well, I'd be absolutely amazed. They are more than large enough to set their own standards. They don't need to live by Western standards. I applaud their broad move to Linux.

Re:It makes sence..

[salesgeek]

It's quite shocking to me that the top guy at Intel is so fundamentally ignorant of the realities of modern computing and communication.

See trusted computing for the why on this. Nothing at the C level of intel is not said without great reason.

Re:It makes sence..

[Anonymous Coward]

See trusted computing for the why on this. Nothing at the C level of intel is not said without great reason.

"trusted computing" (more like anti-trust) is something Microsoft thought up. I don't think mainstream America is going to buy into their crap, as long as word of mouth about what you are giving up by going with it is spread far and wide. The only ones who are with Microsoft on this venture are Microsoft leeches who jump on ALL of Microsoft's ideas.

Look at how many of Microsoft's ideas have failed. This will be another one. BTW, stay away from M$ "interoperability" software - I'll bet that's part of their plan to DRM everything.

Re:It makes sence..

[Anonymous Coward]

Only with the difference that it is still possible to watch NTSC on a PAL TV :-)

But in case of China. If you can provide everybody in china with your products.... That's probably more then they would sell on a whole world market...
And in a while they will produce there on CPU they dont need the 'Wintel' companies anymore. Poor...
Perhaps CPU's and Sw will become cheaper?

Re:It makes sence..

[Minna Kirai]

They don't need to live by Western standards. I applaud their broad move to Linux.

What part of "Linux" (or Unix, or POSIX) is non-Western? Finland is west of Asia I think.

Seattle, on the other hand, is east of China.

Intel Scared?

[yo5oy]

it is just really funny to see a multinational company watching out for the interests of one the largest potential new markets by stating that they won't be able to compete ten to twenty years from now. FUD.

Re:Intel Scared?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yea, you gotta feel for Wintel. China is a huge market, and I think everyone can agree the likes of the Dragon chip isn't part of Intel's plan. There be real competition there.

I can't see any real alternative for SE Asia. They surely don't want to be utterly behold'n to Microsoft/Intel. Two companies that seeming lie outside the reasonable care, custody, and control of the US's own Government let alone SE Asia.

Choosing WinTel isn't a features based purchase decision. It is a LONG term decision akin to choosing your nation's telephone standard. It *IS* a national security question, and its not just about worm 'o the day and "NSA" keys. Why, in all that is, would ANY country choose to pay a such long term economic tax to a foreign corporation that is above its own law? Worse, both Intel and Microsoft have PROVEN themselves uttery untrustworty.

So SE Asia buys into WinTel, they rend their US style path of death and destruction, and when China moves to stop them.... US Trade sanctions.

Yea. I'm sure they're lining up.

Computers/Software are THE core infrastructure of the modern economy. How would you the US would fare if every drop of oil was bought and sold by a single, say Iraqi, company? Secure? I think not, execpt for the fact we can, and will, bomb the S**T out of people to further our agendas.

Yet that is what WinTel would have for SE Asia. Every data bit locked into Wintel DRM and annual program rental fees. Effectively forever.

> You have to ask yourself this: is there an advantage to having a proprietary standard in your country?"

As always, the narrow edge is in the implementation. Linux is NOT a "proprietary standard" by any means. It could be made into one, in a defact sort of way, but Intel has assume a good deal in painting this as pure "protectionism" so soon. Yes, it may turn out that way.

Or not. Linux could be made better into what it aspires to be. A critical infrastructure on which ALL markets can communicate, troll free. Who better than the Asians to contribute their needs to such a platform?

Re:Intel Scared?

[ralphclark]

Yeah - one possible outcome is that China won't be able to participate in global markets - another more likely possibility is that China will export it's homegrown technologies, at unprecedented price levels, undercutting *both* Intel and Microsoft. No wonder Intel are scared.

China already have the manufacturing infrastructure to do all this. They just need to develop their own IP. It's a no-brainer for them.

Re:Intel Scared?

[tmortn]

well...just as M$ is not beholden to China law so is China not bound by M$. Granted using M$ code as their standard seems silly to me from a security standpoint... after all monster that Gates is I have little doubt which side he would side with in a dispute between the two nations, well for now I have little doubt.

Re:Intel Scared?

[BESTouff]

How would you the US would fare if every drop of oil was bought and sold by a single, say Iraqi, company?

Let me guess ... they would invade^Wfree Iraq ?

Re:Intel Scared?

[LINM]

Yeah, and when Intel is trying to market 90 Terra-hertz chips for $10 in 10 years, everyone will be buying the Chinese 60 Terra-hertz ones for $0.02...

Let it be also known to the poor Chinese that

[ThoreauHD]

the Internet will never work with open standards. That's just crazy talk. Crazy!

Re:Let it be also known to the poor Chinese that

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course! If we developed an internet based on "open standards" then most internet companies would break the standards as soon as they smell profit. For example, some large company with huge market share could interpret standards creatively to ensure vendor lock-in, or some infrastructure operator could suddenly rework features of some fundamental protocol. Do I need to spell these out?

huh

[BigBir3d]

Is Intel pushing MS Windows now?

Intel > procs and chipsets > DRM > MS Windows

"proprietary standards"?

[Ikeya]

It's funny how Intel is saying that China would be creating "Proprietary" standards. Umm... how can they be proprietary if they're open source and built on linux? They won't be so "proprietary" if everyone can see their standards and work on interoperability... I would see this as more beneficial than locking themselves on closed proprietary systems. (albeit they are more widely used)

Re:"proprietary standards"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Given how paranoid the Chinese are, it's very unlikely it'll remain completely open source.

Re:"proprietary standards"?

[stratjakt]

Who says that they're going to be open source?

China has no copyright/patent/licensing treaties with the rest of the world.

They have as much respect for the GPL as they do the Windows EULA.

You call Bejing and demand that they make they're changes available via CVS. Remember, these are the same guys who ran kids over with tanks in Tiennamin square.

Re:"proprietary standards"?

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot to mention that they also destroyed the Tibetan way of life and forced the Dali Lama into exile while slaughtering 4 million women, children, soldiers, anyone who didn't join them. I think that is a far greater tragedy than the most recent one. China is out for one thing...domination. They won't contribute to Linux in the least and yet everyone is rooting for them. That is just like rooting for Joseph Stalin or Adolf Hitler. Zieg Hiel /.

Re:"proprietary standards"?

[Anonymous Coward]

4 million?

Try 40 million.

Re:"proprietary standards"?

[Grishnakh]

I think it's more like rooting for Stalin when you're living under Hitler yourself.

At least if they use Linux, it gives Linux much more of a boost than if they all used Windows. Also, just because the government may not contribute anything back, they're setting the standard, so it'll become commonplace for everyone in the country to use Linux. Then you'll start seeing contributions from University students, independent developers, random company employees, etc. And if the government in China is working with other governments in the region, they'll probably realize quickly that any improvements they make should be contributed back so that their partners can use them, and so that they don't have a maintenance nightmare on their hands.

Re:"proprietary standards"?

[stratjakt]

Hey, fella.

If I didn't CHOOSE to use it, it ain't Free as in anything.

And guess what, I choose to use Windows for most things, because linux is absolutely useless to me.

You're all in love with the Chinese government because they like linux. That's just like being all in love with Hitler because you like to paint landscapes too.

Re:"proprietary standards"?

[I8TheWorm]

You mean Uncle Joe?

Re:"proprietary standards"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, US standards are much better... these are the folks who shot Vietnam-protesting college students in Ohio!

Re:"proprietary standards"?

[worldthinker]

Not that it matters in terms of enforceability but according to this link, China is now obliged to the Berne Convention on Intellectual Property Rights... http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/ea/iprcn/cccg1998 .htm

Re:"proprietary standards"?

[Unregistered]

Umm... how can they be proprietary if they're open source and built on linux

Becasuse they're in chinese, duh. Can you read Chinese? Didn't think so.

Re:"proprietary standards"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just as well as these guys run tanks over students without thinking twice, they won't get easily intimidated by a western capitalist "recommendation".

LE+

Re:"proprietary standards"?

[Anonymous Coward]

>> Remember, these are the same guys who ran kids over with tanks in Tiennamin square.

And we were the guys who dropped 2 atomic bombs, dumped Agent Orange, and our (European) ancestors
colonized and mercilessly slew millions of natives
the world over! Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!!

Re:"proprietary standards"?

[Blaskowicz]

And the US killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi soldiers, starved 1.5 millions of children to death with a cynical embargo, destroyed saddam's way of life, contaminated the area with ammunition made of radio-active waste (depleted uranium. Haven't heard of the abnormal rates of leucemias and cancers in iraq?), which not only have killed, but still kill tens of thousands ofIraqi children and US soldiers
A few years laters, the US was providing the chemical weapons that Saddam used to bomb a kurd village (in order to stop kurd rebellions).-

US is out for one thing...domination

Re:"proprietary standards"?

[kpeerless]

or maybe Intel can apply for help to the US government. Remember... these are the same foks who allowd 500,000 Iraqi kids to die of starvation and disease

Re:"proprietary standards"?

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot to mention that they also destroyed the Tibetan way of life and forced the Dali Lama into exile while slaughtering 4 million women, children, soldiers, anyone who didn't join them.

All this does is put them in an exclusive "club" who's other members are Russia, the US and Israel. The connection between proprietary software and a country's inability to stay within it's own borders is weak at best.

Re:"proprietary standards"?

[Anonymous Coward]

> Remember, these are the same guys who ran kids
> over with tanks in Tiennamin square.

Chinese are real monsters. They should better behave like the US who are imprisoning 13 year old children at Guantanamo. Without access to a lawyer. Without impeachment. Without a time table. Because those children are "terrorists". And remember that the US is a real democracy respecting international law. Yeah.

Re:"proprietary standards"?

[Anonymous Coward]

WTF don't people ever blame Saddam for what happened in his own frickin' country?

Re:"proprietary standards"?

[ScottKin]

Remember Cyrano DeBergerac?

Nothing like cutting of your face, despite your nose.

Cheering on China's "support" of Linux is like cheering for Osama bin-Laden when another brainwashed Palestinian kid walks onto an Israeli buss and does the "human cato" trick - no one wins

(for the uninformed, the term "cato" is used in rocketry circles to describe a catastrophic engine failure - which usually leads to a big explosion)

ScottKin - who is really enjoying all of the in-fighting in the OSS/*nix world, especially when RMS starts acting like he's the modern-day equivalent of Ghengis Khan.

(Yes, this is a flame - so frickin` sue me!)

Re:"proprietary standards"?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's implicit... Point is, you blame those that could have acted differently. Saddam couldn't, Dubya could... Consider this: some time during the last century, the US of A turned away one ship carrying 2000 Jews. They were then sent to a death camp and murdered...
Well, the point is, you do not blame Hitler for these 2,000, though you blame him for the other 6,000,000. However, the blood of the 2000 people are on OUR PARENTS' hands, cause they COULD HAVE saved those 2000 just like that.
I cannot change what Saddam does, but I CAN change what George Dubya Bush does (vote, write to your rep, organize, etc., etc.).

What's more, who we really need to blame is YOU (and me :) for allowing the Dubyas and Saddams of the world to ever come to power on the first place.

Translation:

[MBCook]

If you guys switch to Linux, it will be easier to move to a non-Intel (x86, Xscale, whatever) platform, so we advise you against it. Stick with something like Windows, where you have to use our processor and can't easily switch to something else (like the processor that China is making).

Anyone suprised?

Re:Translation:

[stratjakt]

Hi

I just wanted to let you know that we've heard that whiney tripe a million times over.

Fact is, MS has nothing to worry about, so long as linux means a marginally useful desktop, characterized by poor documentation, and an arrogant zit-faced userbase. This will not change any time soon.

MS will always own the desktop, because frankly, noone has ever COMPETED with them on TECHNICAL merit. Only on idealogical merit.

Thank you for your time.

Re:Translation:

[wfrp01]

You'll also have no compelling reason to buy our DRM enabled chips. If you don't buy these, you might not be able to run the latest version of Windows. If you're not running Windows, why would you spend extra dollars for DRM technology you don't need or want?

DRM means all kinds of money for lots of people. They are going to fight tooth and nail to make it ubiquitous. Think of the domino effects. You'll need DRM TV to work with your DRM this and your DRM that. DRM chips up the wazoo. There will be different competing DRM standards. Whoever wins, wins big.

(Unless DRM gets the big boot it deserves.)

If Intel has no (non-DRM) competition, this might just come to pass. OTOH, a chip company with a concience selling a non-DRM alternative could make significant inroads - or at least help keep Intel honest.

Re:Translation:

[echorun]

Ummm XScale is an Intel Product http://www.xscale.com

Re:Translation:

[MBCook]

I know, that was my point. Now that I read that it didn't come out as I wanted. It should be more like:

... non-Intel (not their X86, not their Xscale, etc)...

Sorry that didn't come out right. Intel isn't going to complain if people move from x86->XScale (they would probably like it because no one else makes XScale processors).

Re:Translation:

[vadim_t]

Yeah, I guess that Linux firewall at work that boots from a floppy and has no hard disk is a figment of my imagination.

There you have one place where Linux competes on tecnical merit. Try to come up with a way of putting Win2K firewall on a 1.44MB floppy. Heck, or even a 8MB flash card.

Re:Translation:

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I guess that Linux firewall at work that boots from a floppy and has no hard disk is a figment of my imagination.

Shut up you arrogant zit-faced fucknut! You proved his point.

Re:Translation:

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that they are suped up ARMs (XScale==StrongARM2).

Re:Translation:

[Tony-A]

Whoever wins, wins big.

Yep, they win the whole buggy whip market.

In olden days I could buy a turntable, amplifier, receiver, speakers, different brands, different levels of price and quality, at widely spaced points in time, and have the justified expectation that everything would work together, within the limits of quality of the components. If and as I had money available I could upgrade the quality of my sound system. This all makes Hi-Fi desirable.

With crippled components, where you have to be very careful about what plugs into what, the expectation changes to an enormous hassle to get much of anything to work with anything else. This makes the entire mess undesirable. If some music CDs are crippled, I have better things to do (like watching the grass grow) than keep track of which are crippled and which are not. DRM may grab a bigger piece of the pie, but it will be a much smaller pie.

Re:Translation:

[Minna Kirai]

MS will always own the desktop, because frankly, noone has ever COMPETED with them on TECHNICAL merit.

You may be right... Apple always blew them away so totally, it might not be fair to call it a "competition".

Welcome to the Wintel nightmare!

[Ophidian P. Jones]

What they've feared most: all developing nations that are short on cash but have plenty of talent and labor, creating their own OS's and hardware architectures, leaving Craig and Bill out of the loop with empty pockets.

Last time it was M$ not getting its share with the OS consortium, now it's hardware. Soon they'll have a complete system...

Re:Welcome to the Wintel nightmare!

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually... leaving a lot of folks out of the loop with empty pockets - not only the company owners but many working class blokes are already out of jobs due to outsourcing.

The odds are, the talent and labor will not significantly increase in standard of living anytime soon. This leads to developing nations with large, cheap labor pools with infrastructure and knowledge to compete in the global marketplace. Right now, the USA is facing a crisis of outsourcing of technical jobs (computer related mostly) and many people are in denial. Eventually (if not so far off from now), Europe will be facing the same thing. Developing nations are getting tons of educational subsidies and material for free in the form of Linux and OSS and strengthening themselves for little cost. Eventually, they get to the point of being recipients for outsourcing jobs, taking the jobs of those who contributed to them - all at little cost. What a deal!

Article: -1 troll

[jbellis]

He's talking about chinese plans to try to grow their own (non x86) chip market through protectionist policies, not about "don't try linux it will never work!!!111"

The high costs of such a two-pronged approach would make it difficult to compete. "You have to ask yourself this: is there an advantage to having a proprietary standard in your country?" he added. To adopt unique regional technologies would mean "not participating in the rest of the world because you have a proprietary standard, and not being able to inter-operate with the rest of the world. I fail to see the benefit".

Even if you didn't read the rest of the article, it's clear he's talking about "proprietary standards," which linux clearly is not.

Furthermore,

In spite of warning about some methods used to promote homegrown technology champions in Asia, the Intel boss applauded efforts to stimulate a local software industry. He said this would be an important step in the region's fight against software pirates.

Re:Article: -1 troll

[leandrod]

> He's talking about chinese plans to try to grow their own (non x86) chip market through protectionist policies

> The high costs of such a two-pronged approach would make it difficult to compete. "You have to ask yourself this: is there an advantage to having a proprietary standard in your country?"

First, protectionism is everywhere. It is very hipocritical of the US to protect its agriculture and job markets, and then expect everyone else to continue to either import or pay royalties on its chips and software.

Second, this particular piece of protectionism could actually lead to something. If one takes a potentially more efficient and cheaper RISC system, and uses it to run GNU/Linux, he can makes dirty cheap, open systems accessible to millions. One could even see this as a linchpin for the end of proprietary systems dominance, both software and hardware -- yes, x86 is proprietary. In this case, China and its partners in potential would be protecting not a closed market, but a nascent, open industry from dumping, IP claims and similar anticompetitive tatics from US companies.

Now, how MIPS is anymore proprietary than x86 I fail to see. Quite to the contrary.

Re:Article: -1 troll

[babyrat]

Anything anyone from a company says regarding a competing product/technology needs to be taken with a grain (or two) of salt.

Of COURSE this is a bad idea - because it means competition and potential loss of revenue for Intel.

Geez - what if the proprietary standard chip in China is better than Intel's prorietary standard chip in the US?? If you didn't have to worry about backwards compatiblity, and started with a clean slate could that be possible? That would REALLY suck for Intel - especially if all Oracle (and other software companies)had to do was recompile the existing source to run on the new chips (ok - porbably more than a simple recompile, but you get the idea)...

Re:Article: -1 troll

[davecb]

I'd suggest that he's arguing against the use of Linux by adancing arguements that have little to do with it. This is arguement of the form:

• Premise 1: a chinese processor will fail in the world market
• Premise 2: linux will run on a chinese processor
• Conclusion: Linux will fail

In fact, the correct conclusion is more likely to be of the form Linux on a processor which fails will be a failure.

--dave

Re:Article: -1 troll

[chef_raekwon]

If one takes a potentially more efficient and cheaper RISC system, and uses it to run GNU/Linux,

something just occured to me -
ofcourse Linux is open standards - but what is stopping the Chinese from changing the source, not rereleasing it, then forcing out binaries to its public? (ie forcing everyone to use RedArmy Linux, or whatever its called...)

what are the ramifications of this? and if this isnt possible, why not?

Re:Article: -1 troll

[Anonymous Coward]

"First, protectionism is everywhere. It is very hipocritical of the US to protect its agriculture and job markets, and then expect everyone else to continue to either import or pay royalties on its chips and software."

You have no idea about the U.S. trade policies.

Get a clue.

Re:Article: -1 troll

[Anonymous Coward]

if they violate the GPL, we invade!!!!

Re:Article: -1 troll

[Ami Ganguli]

Well, they could to lots of things, but there's no conceivable reason for them to do it.

The assumption underlying your question is that the Chinese government does things just to be nasty.

Re:Article: -1 troll

[leandrod]

> what is stopping the Chinese from changing the source, not rereleasing it, then forcing out binaries to its public?

The GNU GPL. China has to respect copyrights to be able to do trade with the world. Additionally, if they fork they have to maintain it, which is an expensive and doubtful enterprise, and they would have a hard time trying to keep their people from just grabbing the latest versions from the free world.

I could see them trying to enforce things like political police backdoors, and even have general success, but not complete success.

Re:Article: -1 troll

[Grishnakh]

What's stopping them? Probably the same thing that's stopping them from lining up everyone in the country and executing every third person on a whim: there's no reason to!!! The Chinese government doesn't have a monopoly market to protect, so why would they care if their citizens could get to the source code?

Re:Article: -1 troll

[Colonel Panic]

He's talking about chinese plans to try to grow their own (non x86) chip market through protectionist policies, not about "don't try linux it will never work!!!111"

Last I heard, Intel's x86 family is proprietary - therefore Intel persues a protectionist policy to safeguard it's IP and it's market. You can't call the Pentium or Itanic open standards. In Intel's worldview they are standards by virtue of the fact that something like 90% of all computers sold have an x86 CPU, but they certainly aren't open. If another type of CPU gains a huge market (like the Red Dragon in China) then it will become the same kind of standard that the x86 used to be.

The CPU that China is working on will (from what I understand) be a much more open 'standard' than any of Intel's CPUs. The consortium will share the design freely with members (granted, it probably won't be free to join this consortium).

The reason Barrett is worried about Linux in this case is that Micro$oft isn't likely to port Windows to the Red Dragon CPU anytime soon, but it's trivial to create a gcc backend for a new CPU like the Red Dragon, and as soon as you've got a gcc for it you've got Linux running on it in a matter of days or hours. So Linux enables an easy change to a new CPU and this is worrisome to Intel since China, Japan and Korea represent a potential market that is probably 5X as big as the US market... And of course India might become involved as well which adds another billion people to the market.

Given that Intel is working hard to transfer lots of tech jobs to China and India (so the jobs will be 'closer to the markets' to quote Andy Grove), a lot of people here in the US soon won't have the cash to buy Intel products... Barrett is probably becoming aware of this and maybe now he's starting to say "Oh, shit!" How ironic: We export jobs to China and India to save money and thus decimate our own market and then China and India decide to save even more money by not buying Intel.

Re:Article: -1 troll

[fupeg]

First, protectionism is everywhere. It is very hipocritical of the US to protect its agriculture and job markets, and then expect everyone else to continue to either import or pay royalties on its chips and software.

So two wrongs make a right? This isn't the US government criticizing China, it is Intel. Intel does not have agriculture to protect and is not trying to "protect" American jobs. Intel has had overseas labs and production facilities for years (see Centrino.)

Second, this particular piece of protectionism could actually lead to something.

Protectionism is always bad. There are hundreds of years of history to prove this. A "homegrown only" policy leads to a lack of compettition (you would think pseudo-communists would especially understand this) and thus very poor quality over time. When this burden is saddled on a huge emerging market such as China, it not only hopelessly hinders China itself, it also burdens the rest of the world that wants to do business with China by having to deal with sub-quality, proprietary standards.

And for any moron who thinks that I am making a stab at China when I say all of this, it has nothing to do with China. Any nation or nations who close themselves off to compettition will suffer the same problem. It does not matter how big or small the nations in question are. Of course Intel and the rest of the world certainly wouldn't care as much if it was smaller, less economically significant nations were doing this kind of thing.

Re:Article: -1 troll

[leandrod]

> So two wrongs make a right?

Not at all. Just putting things in perspective.

> This isn't the US government criticizing China, it is Intel. Intel does not have agriculture to protect and is not trying to "protect" American jobs.

It is the US government who keeps the world in line with the WIPO's artificial monopolies, which ensures Intel can keep people from producing compatible chips. So yes, Intel has the help of the US government to protect not US jobs, but US capitals invested in a technology which is actually malefical to the environment and technical progress, being less efficient then its RISC competitors, one of which China is trying to advance.

> A "homegrown only" policy leads to a lack of compettition

China's policy could degenerate in this direction, but I see no indications of that yet. Instead, they are proposing a more efficient chip refusing to compete in the MHz rat race sponsored by Intel, which dissipates tremendous energy without actually producing real benefits; instead we spend energy, put up with noise, have to get air conditioning not to get more or better work done, but to run bloatware... and they take care of bloatware too by going GNU/Linux.

Don't ever believe US corporations, specially not the Wintel duopoly. They have been labelling their proprietary products 'standards' and calling standards-based RISC and POSIX products as proprietary for years, and so have helped killing lotsa good tech, such as Digital Unix and the Alpha just for an example.

Re:Article: -1 troll

[fupeg]

It is the US government who keeps the world in line with the WIPO's artificial monopolies, which ensures Intel can keep people from producing compatible chips.

I am interested in how you think WIPO has created an artifical monopoly for Intel. It's hard to see how Intel has a monopoly at all when other chip makers are free to compete against them in the x86 architecure realm. The obvious example is AMD. Intel has repeatedly felt pressure from AMD and has caused them to spend huge amounts in R&D and marketing, and has also caused them to cut prices repeatedly. Again I would be very interested in how Intel has a monopoly and how WIPO has helped create/sustain such a monopoly.

Even if you were right, then what you are accusing Intel/US of is really the same thing that you are defending for China. So how can you defend a practice by one party, but condemn it for another? Clearly that shows a bias.

RISC based processors had a huge advantage in the server world for many years, despite whatever Intel and its supposed federal conspirators were or were not doing. This was true just two years ago. RISC never caught on in the desktop market, and maybe there's something that Intel did that you could point out that had something to do with this. RISC has been dying on the server side because of Linux and because of the price/performance of x86 hardware. The decline of RISC can only be contributed to economics and the innovation of Intel/AMD.

So in short, I don't think that there are any facts that support your arguments. And even if there were facts, your logic is inconsistent.

China's policy could degenerate in this direction, but I see no indications of that yet.

It's not a matter of degenerating. It is a policy that ASSURES declining quality in the long term, no matter what gains it brings in the short term. It's not a matter of if, it is only a matter of time.

Re:Article: -1 troll

[Anonymous Coward]

RISC has been dying on the server side because of Linux and because of the price/performance of x86 hardware. The decline of RISC can only be contributed to economics and the innovation of Intel/AMD.

Reeeally ... then can you explain why is Alpha (yeah, you know, the DEAD platform - guess who killed it!) still the best kick-ass server processor out there and a lot of the latest Intel/AMD 'innovations' actually implement OLD Alpha engineering schemes?

and how did Linux kill RISC? now that must have come from the bottomless pit of thought ...

Re:Article: -1 troll

[Tony-A]

but what is stopping the Chinese from changing the source, not rereleasing it, then forcing out binaries to its public?

Nothing stopping it really. Except the Chinese.
Let's say I take a Linux distribution, make some screwball changes, and only let out the binaries. Are you interested? No? Am I interested? As I start looking at long-term prospects, I start losing interest, AND IT'S MY STUFF!

Primary reason for not rereleasing it would be a lot of stop-gap measures that you do not want to see picked up by the mainline. I'll use stuff myself that I wouldn't want unleased on an unsuspecting world, certainly not with my name attached.

Re:Article: -1 troll

[Eivind]

Nothing stops them from doing so. But nothing stops them from using onlz pirated versions of MS-Windows either. *shrug*

If they did we'd be loosing out on any improvements they make, but on the other hand, their version would probably quickly diverge enough that it becomes a hassle for them to apply our improvements. Thus the end result will be duplication of effort, for them and for us. I don't think they're that stupid. There's no gain in it and plenty of hurt.

Re:Article: -1 troll

[leandrod]

> how you think WIPO has created an artifical monopoly for Intel

Copyrights and patents are, by definition, artificial monopolies granted by the powers that be.

WIPO is so to speak the entry ticket of nations to the benefits of the WTO.

Absence of, or weaker copyrights and patents would have enabled other countries to produce their own processor, either compatible with x86 or with any RISC architecture out there. The way it is, only old x86 licensees can manufacture x86-compatible processors; you have to either be such a licensed foundry or hire one of these to make your x86 chips, and even so Intel makes your life as difficult as possible, effectively precluding plug-in compatible chips, forcing x86 vendors to have their own, separate, smaller-volume chipsets and motherboards.

On the other hand, the proprietary MS Windows monopoly precludes less proprietary RISC processors such as MIPS or SPARC (perhaps Alpha or PowerPC; they have or had alternative sources of supply but I'm not sure how open or proprietary ther respective ISAs are) of taking hold. Even when MS WNT supported some RISC architectures, it was a half-hearted support, with even MS itself neither porting all its major apps nor optmising the OS itself, thus making x86 comparatively a safe bet for its customers.

> what you are accusing Intel/US of is really the same thing that you are defending for China

Not at all. China would produce a MIPS-compatible processor to run free software on it; how that compares to run proprietary software on a proprietary processor? And in fact there are not hints of overt protectionism, only of incentives.

For example, I find no hints that China will play any role similar to the US's in killing Brazilian clones of the Macintosh (a clean room reimplementation).

Finally, even if there was protectionism, the hipocrisy of the First World protectionism in agriculture demands an answer. Two wrongs don't make a right, but if the First World isn't made to taste its own medicine there is little chance it will repent. So while I am all for freedom of trade, speech and movement, the rule of law and justice for all, I would be more understanding of a possible short-term protection to open tech than of the current effectively eternal protection to proprietary products.

> The decline of RISC can only be contributed to economics and the innovation of Intel/AMD.

Which innovation? Does copying RISC badly counts as innovation?

The economics involved is the network effect that creates more demand for an already proprietary, monopolist product, and the volume decorrent of this lock-in.

> It is a policy that ASSURES declining quality in the long term

How does the state subsidising a lower-cost, higher-efficiency, open tech assures declining quality?

Re:Article: -1 troll

[Minna Kirai]

You can't call the Pentium or Itanic open standards.

The opcodes are known and well documented. Multiple companies besides Intel has created their own reimplementation of the "x86 standard". Dozens more individual programmers have duplicated it in software.

It seems much like an open standard.

Re:Article: -1 troll

[Colonel Panic]

The opcodes are known and well documented. Multiple companies besides Intel has created their own reimplementation of the "x86 standard". Dozens more individual programmers have duplicated it in software.

So? When was the last time you programmed directly in x86 opcodes? It's an instruction set - sure it's the most widely used instruction set in the world, but as long as you have a compiler that can target your processor (like gcc) it really doesn't matter especially when it comes to Open Source software which you can compile yourself. As long as we have an open source OS (Linux, FreeBSD, etc), office applications (OpenOffice, Abiword, Kword, etc), browsers (Mozilla, Konqueror, etc) what does it matter that
that they get compiled to x86 or RedDragon opcodes?

The x86 opcodes are not a standard like a language standard (like the C/C++, or Java standards). Programming languages are standardized so we can use different compilers/development tools and get reasonably similar results (though the C++ standard seems to be interpreted rather broadly), but very few people program directly in ASM anymore so x86 opcodes can't be considered like a language standard.

Re:Article: -1 troll

[Minna Kirai]

That reply meant absolutely nothing. It merely argued that CPU opcodes aren't like a high-level programming language. So what?

That may be true, but it has no bearing as to whether or not the Intel x86 is a "proprietary" standard. You just claimed that it's impossible for ANY CPU to be an "open standard", since humans try to avoid using it directly.

sure it's the most widely used instruction set in the world

No, it is not. In cellphones alone there are more Motorola CPUs than Intel has ever sold.

Re:Article: -1 troll

[Colonel Panic]

"Meaningless, Meaningless said the Teacher..."

The opcodes may be openly available (though, aren't they copyrighted by Intel? And haven't Intel and AMD diverged by introducing new, incompatible opcodes?) but the implementation certainly isn't.
Of course you've got to publish the opcodes for a processor (and the actions they cause the processor to take): people have to be able to program the darn thing. But just because the opcodes are published doesn't make the x86 architecture (or to be more specific, the 386,486,Pentium I,II,II,IV, etc.) an 'open standard' - I'm sure Intel would take issue with your assertion. Sure you can reverse engineer what has been published (as AMD and VIA[Cyrix] have done) to come up with your own architecture, but does that make it 'open'

Perhaps this is just devolving into hairsplitting, here... But it seems to me that Barret's claim of a standard (going back to the original article) is spurious, since the instruction set of a processor is pretty much irrelavant as long as it's reasonably full-featured and supports reasonable performance. If you have a widely used compiler (like gcc) that can emit object code for your processor _and_ if you've got the source for all of the applications you need then who cares if your competitor's opcodes (Intel's in this case) are widely known and used?

Or to put it another way: According to Barret's own claim, didn't Intel ignore a 'standard' when they came out with the Itanic? It's opcodes are not compatible with the x86 so-called-standard. So Intel itself did exactly what Barret is chastising China about.

What was that picture!!!!

[crayiii]

OMFG what the hell was that!!!! I think I'm going to be sick!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Or maybe Intel is worried about...

[tugrul]

... China's own attempts at a cpu. With Linux and a good plan, these nations will only be a recompile away from ditching Intel.

Re:Or maybe Intel is worried about...

[greylion3]

The parent to this comment has an extremely good point - without Linux, they would have to start from scratch writing an OS for their new chip.
With Linux, all they have to do is write a good compiler.

Re:Or maybe Intel is worried about...

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe the SCO will sue China! That would make for a good /. story.

Re:Or maybe Intel is worried about...

[Anonymous Coward]

> Maybe the SCO will sue China!

Yes, that plan is in the works. And they are going to hire all of Japan as lawyers.

Re:Or maybe Intel is worried about...

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering their chip is just a reimplimentation of a preexisting design, then GCC probably already supports it ;)

Re:Or maybe Intel is worried about...

[Yokaze]

Since it (the Dragon processor) is x86 compatible, they do not need to write either.

Re:Or maybe Intel is worried about...

[Yokaze]

Sorry, I was wrong. It is a MIPS-esque instruction set.

Re:Or maybe Intel is worried about...

[Anonymous Coward]

The Slashdot dream of the completely communist system is at hand, comrades.

Re:Or maybe Intel is worried about...

[Billly Gates]

Strange.

Intel has been one of Linux's greatest supporters. It has helped Intel break into the risc dominated unix field with cheap lintel servers.

Infact all the recent Itanium and Pentium4 chips were designed using Linux.

Intel has its own internal LUG that numbers over 10k. They have been working hard to gnu-ify and change the kernel so it can compile on intel's compilers.

If anything this should give Intel an advantage because proprietary chips are more expensive or slower because they can not be produced in bulk like vainilla P4's. Gcc is also most heavily optimized for the intel platform.

Re:Or maybe Intel is worried about...

[literalguy]

funny how gcc is heavily optimised for the x86, except when people are complaining about the apple SPEC results :-)

In other news

[revividus]

Major Oil companies encourage manufacturers not to develop cars which do not rely on fossil fuels, as this may prevent people from being able to participate in the global Oil business.

I know, Linux machines use intel processors, too. But unless I'm mistaken, intel and MS are pretty closely aligned. It doesn't seem like a very unbiased party, hence the analogy.

Re:In other news

[gfody]

and in OTHER news
the company that makes the plastic helmets for retarted kids is encouraging hospitals to stop providing prenatal care as its cutting in to their bottom line.

state lotteries across the nation are encouraging colleges to drop the statistics requirement.. blah blah blah

enough of this shit already, oil companies against electric cars? prove it.

Can you say FUD?

[MikeCapone]

How about he explains why they wouldn't be able to take part of the global market?

Re:Can you say FUD?

[overshoot]

They won't be able to take part in the global market because TCPA-approved systems won't talk to non-TCPA systems and the West will be 100% TCPA.

Re:Can you say FUD?

[MikeCapone]

And there are absolutely no workarounds to that?

Technology has been made to bend-over backwards more than once in the past, I doubt it'd be impossible to make it work.

You mean, like the metric system?

[bs_02_06_02]

Hey Intel: Like English vs. the metric system?

Re:You mean, like the metric system?

[taniwha]

? most english speaking countries use the metric system, I can only think of a couple that don't and only one that mostly doesn't ... and even they did the metric currency thing years ago

Re:You mean, like the metric system?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not the english system, the English system. Inches and feet originated from England. They have since learned better, shame that we in the US have not.

Freedom of choice

[FathomIT]

I partly agree with Intel on this one. In many ways China is still backwards and has many isolationist tendencies. China should in no way put into effect a foreign software ban in any shape or form within the private sector where freedom of choice should reign. Should they try to impose their own China Linux OS they will be making a big mistake for the future.

Government is a different case and I think they should be able to implement a non-MS standard.

Re:Freedom of choice

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't believe a ban was mentioned. Merely a standard.

Hmmm....

[Duncan3]

Lets see, at ~$150 saved per PC without Windows, times about 2 Billion PC's... Buys one hell of alot of "lets go participate in world markets".

And if you skip the "Intel inside" you can double that savings easily.

Yet again more asian long-term thinking at work.

Re:Hmmm....

[InfoVore]

Lets see, at ~$150 saved per PC without Windows, times about 2 Billion PC's...

Oh come on now. With those kind of numbers you know Balmer would cut their license fee by AT LEAST 5%. Sheesh!

Re:Hmmm....

[Richthofen80]

Yeah , because when it comes to Asian markets, Piracy never takes a share.

Re:Hmmm....

[xchino]

RTFA, this is based on open source and open standards. They'd be hardpressed to pirate Linux.

Re:Hmmm....

[Richthofen80]

Excuse me, but he was assuming that 1.2 billion people used windows legimitaly and that linux would have freed up $150 x 1.2 billion. I was just letting him know that China and other Asian markets are a lot less profitable than that equation, so the savings would be a lot less on a linux conversion.

Re:Hmmm....

[tshak]

Lets see, at ~$150 saved per PC without

Depending on your OEM agreement XP Home goes for as little as ~$25 per PC (see: DELL).

Re:Hmmm....

[Anonymous Coward]

And what good is your $25 XP Home gonna do you?
Sure, you can get free pr0n, worms, and windows updates, but anything else?
Development? Publishing? CAD? Science? Services?
The bigger point we all are missing is that Windows is a worthless product that is forced down customers' throats.
If people could make an informed choice, most wouldn't get Windows even if Gates payed them.

Wanna pay money for your OS? - get Apple's MacOS X
otherwise, chose linux/BSD

Re:Hmmm....

[f0rt0r]

Ya true. I am copyrighting, trademarking, and doing everything I can to control the market on "Intel Outside" computer case logos. If this China Dragon chip thingy takes off, I am going to be swimming in $$$'s!

This isn't a free trade issue...

[Anonymous Coward]

This really doesn't strike me as a free trade issue, but thats the way the big American companies are spinning it. Their just trying to tap the popular momentum against "protectionist economics", when in reality, the real issue is simply taking a shot at making their own standards.

Does this have anything do with Linux?

[Otter]

As many times as the FT article mentions Linux, it's not clear that Barrett's concern had anything to do with it. Conspiracy theories aside, what would he care? It's the possibility of an Asian standard based around some non-x86 CPU that has him worried.

Anyway, that's my two cents. You can go back to running around in circles while waving your arms and shrieking about Microsoft now...;-)

Re:Does this have anything do with Linux?

[DarkOx]

His concern is that people are wedded to thier architecture by the fact they can't run the software they have on anything else. Linux users could switch easily to any archietecure they can compile and update the kernel to support. There is already a wide variety of non-intel platforms supported. It takes away intels ability to leverage the upgrade cycle to make profits, if I don't like intels new pricing I can but PPC chips from IBM.

Oh stop it...

[gpinzone]

This isn't an anti-Linux stance. It's a stance against customizing everything for China. Linux just makes it easier to do. The warning is for China not to close themselves off from the rest of the world by creating a proprietary OS, apps, etc. Wow. China being insular. Who would have thunk it?

Re:Oh stop it...

[Anonymous Coward]

How is Linux a proprietary OS?

Re:Oh stop it...

[penguin7of9]

It's a stance against customizing everything for China.

Well, gee, I suppose we just should ship Microsoft Windows with the default US English language pack and be done with it.

Seriously, given how different China is culturally and linguistically, everything does get customized for China anyway.

Wow. China being insular. Who would have thunk it?

They still strike me as less insular than the US, and the US's insularity doesn't seem to have hurt it.

I mean, the US is different and insular in so many ways from other nations: US measures (used almost nowhere else), US paper sizes and office supplies, US plugs, etc.

The Great Thing about Standards

[Dark Paladin]

Isn't just that there are so many of them.

The great thing about standards, and having "open" systems, is that everybody is on fair ground. Why does Red Hat and Suse outsell their competition? Is it because they have some "secret extra" that locks in their customers?

Well, no (at least not for the most part). It's because of the other things they bring to support the standard, such as service, support, upgrades, developing to add to what has been done to make the "standard" easier to use.

So if China wants to base their software on Linux, more power to them - as long as they obey the GPL. If they make an improvement to make it easier to use Chinese characters on the command line, great - release it to everybody else. If they make a processor that works like Intel and they want to make it public, have a good time.

So I disagree with Mr. Barrett in principle that using regional standards is a "bad" thing - as long as those standards are published, realized by everybody, and don't have any hidden "gotchas".

What China will have to remember is the great thing about standards - there are so many of them. They (and by this I mean China's oppressive communist government) might think of some great standards, like "electrocute religious dissodents if they touch a computer". Or "file encryption systems must have a government backdoor at any time".

Because the rest of the world might not want to use that particular standard in their stuff. And if you have 75% of the world not using your standard, you either have to a) say you don't care (and make Mr. Barrett right), b) modify your standard, or c) join the rest of the world.

And if it turns out they're just taking the intellectual property of others - including Linux and yes, Intel - and not returning it to the group, they'll find that people will not be as interested in playing in their sandbox.

So have fun, China, and I hope to see some interesting new standards. I actually wish you luck if you decide you want to make your own processors and software, and if you truly want to make both open for all to use, have a good time.

Re:The Great Thing about Standards

[OriginalGlug]

So if China wants to base their software on Linux, more power to them - as long as they obey the GPL.

And if they don't, what recourse is there. Sue the People's Republic of China under Chinese law. Yah right. The state of China is in many ways like a large corporation, and I suspect that whatever they make will be proprietary because they believe it is in their interest to keep knowledge and power out of the hands of the people.

Re:The Great Thing about Standards

[The Lord of Chaos]

So if China wants to base their software on Linux, more power to them - as long as they obey the GPL.

Unfortunately China may have little obligation to obey the GPL since it is based on US/European (Berne convention) copyright law. Moreover, any enforcement efforts (ie law cases) would have to be done in Chinese courts. A long way away from FSF headquarters. And a different jurisdictions from any legal precedents involving the GPL.

Re:The Great Thing about Standards

[ddimas]

And if it turns out they're just taking the intellectual property of others - including Linux and yes, Intel - and not returning it to the group, they'll find that people will not be as interested in playing in their sandbox.

They have a Billion people. What makes you think they care?

Re:The Great Thing about Standards

[Anonymous Coward]

What China will have to remember is the great thing about standards - there are so many of them. They (and by this I mean China's oppressive communist government) might think of some great standards, like "electrocute religious dissodents if they touch a computer". Or "file encryption systems must have a government backdoor at any time"

Sounds like NSA's Magic Lantern here. Oops, they're the spies for the oppressive capitalist government...

Re:The Great Thing about Standards

[Minna Kirai]

Unfortunately China may have little obligation to obey the GPL since it is based on US/European (Berne convention) copyright law.

So... eleven years ago, when China signed the Berne Convention... you consider that "little" obligation?

And a different jurisdictions from any legal precedents involving the GPL.

From all ZERO of those precedents...

It's this kind of crap

[Kethinov]

that keeps the world from being united under a truly open computing standard. West competes with east. East competes with west. At this rate we're gonna be doomed for the rest of eternity on this big blue rock and we'll never pull together and blast off into space to colonize other worlds so our species survives even after our star goes supernova in several billion years. [/endrant]

Re:It's this kind of crap

[Anonymous Coward]

given how we're doing so far.. would really like to see mankind survive?

Re:It's this kind of crap

[Anonymous Coward]

>that keeps the world from being united under a truly open computing
standard. West competes with east. East competes with west. At this
rate we're gonna be doomed for the rest of eternity on this big blue
rock and we'll never pull together and blast off into space to
colonize other worlds so our species survives even after our star goes
supernova in several billion years. [/endrant]
>
>
Sorry, but the Chinese and the other peoples of the world were *NEVER* included in the vision of the future morons like you keep ranting about. Take that back. Chinese and other peoples *were* around but "kept in their place"

Re:It's this kind of crap

[jacksonyee]

Competition by itself isn't a bad thing, as humanity as a whole would never have progressed as much as we have if we didn't have competition. Just look at the space race between Russia and the United States, or the CPU wars between Intel and AMD to see how competition has benefited society as a whole. For what you said about humanity being stuck on earth, we might have never landed a man on the moon by now if there wasn't such a motivation between the two superpowers at the time. NASA has been just struggling to maintain any appearance of a major inspirational event since the 70s and the Challenger explosion.

What throws competition off though, are actions which go beyond simple, honest competitive motives... mainly false marketing and greedy corporations in the tech industry today. If this was a sport, there would be a referee around to call fouls and return play to normal. Unfortunately, there's no such referee in our society, especially in international circles where one country doesn't even like another country, and won't bother implementing the same laws or restrictions. Until there's someone or something to enforce fair play, this is going to be the norm.

Re:It's this kind of crap

[krisbrowne42]

Last time I checked China is working on their own space program now, and they won't chicken out when a handful of people die doing their jobs. They'll make it up there with a presence long before we do.

Re:It's this kind of crap

[demo9orgon]

If it were only that simple.

It will be great fun to see what the Chinese do. Contrary to the opinions of the media titans and the Wintel rats' nest, China's MFN status lets them play. This means that unless Wintel can revoke MFN, everyone should look forward to an incredibly cheap kit that runs Linux like mad! Why should Wintel pout, after all, they don't want "filthy linux" on their fine, upstanding and embraced/extended/probed/cracked/exploited hardware-os thingy anyway. Right? Gwarsh...sounds like their dream of killing of AMD might come true after all and they're just worried that if the Chinese do a good job (why not, they manufacture all of the plastic shiny things that make your children goad you into getting them a toxic-meal) they will be next. Who cares. If you're posting from the states there's precious few manufacturing jobs here anyway, almost none of them involve components that make your PC's, just the ones that assemble them, and even that won't change for a while.

And as for the whole "...doomed for the rest of eternity..." thing, for all practical purposes humanity is doomed to spend it here. Don't worry though, it won't last long enough to matter except to some tiny subset of significance that countless ages from the last monkey-boy sputter something else might come along and say, "?" as it looks at the patterns the roads make from orbit before taking a snap and moving along.

Wither you paint the influence of Theocracy, the Military-Industrial complex, the Illuminati, the Masonic, Extra-dimmensional influencers/collectors or Whitey on the canvas doesn't really matter; the technologies required to bring a civilization into space and sustain it are too terrifying for any human society to accept unless there's no other choice. It's entertaining to think that someday the monkey-meat that drives cars, fights wars, and breeds out of control now could someday flit between the stars, but like freedom it's a fantasy that sells many shiny things.

Re:It's this kind of crap

[ddimas]

Actually, it'll only be groups like the West that get stuck here. Hey You! Roundeye! Moon belong to China! Get Off!

Re:It's this kind of crap

[Kethinov]

Sorry, but the Chinese and the other peoples of the world were *NEVER* included in the vision of the future morons like you keep ranting about. Take that back. Chinese and other peoples *were* around but "kept in their place"

And just how the fuck do you know that? You don't even know me and you accuse me of being a racist based on a single Slashdot post with only a couple of sentences in it. It's morons like you who give ACs a bad name.

Pretty big market....

[smcavoy]

If China/Asia decides their own course of technology specific to there needs, would the rest of the world not try to interoperate? I mean there's over a billion people there!

Would it not be prudent to have technology that works the way they need it to, instead of accepting whatever multinationals decide is good enough for them?

And anyhow if it's based on open standards, will it not be easier to interoperate with them anyhow??

I think the statement is more about protecting Intel's interests (i.e. selling chips), then what's "good for asia"

Rest of the world???

[John Zero]

USA = 200-300 million people (approx)
Europe = 200-300 million people (approx)

China = more than 1000 million people

So, who is the "rest of the world"?

Re:Rest of the world???

[Anonymous Coward]

USA = 200-300 million people (approx) = Mostly Windows
Europe = 200-300 million people (approx) = Soon Mostly Linux

China = more than 1000 million people = Mostly Linux

Sounds to me like Linux will soon Win the desktop battle.

Re:Rest of the world???

[Anonymous Coward]

The 5000 million people who aren't Chinese?

Re:Rest of the world???

[Anonymous Coward]

And then who will you side with when you have no choice but Linux?

Re:When will the PFY's on Slashdot tire of goatsec

[arabagast]

Easy... When hell freezes over.

Linux: Intel's friend and foe

[crow]

Intel has been very friendly to Linux in the past, and for good reason. Linux provides a means for Intel to take market share away from the likes of Sun and HP. Why buy a non-Intel server when you can do the job just fine with an Intel-based Linux server? (True for many tasks, debatable for others.)

On the other hand, Intel has much to fear from Linux. If there were a large enough market that didn't care about Windows, then it would become practical for Linux users to question whey they should run on an expensive Intel chip instead of a cheaper non-x86 CPU from another vendor. The lock-in to the instruction set would be gone. Intel would have to compete head-to-head with MIPS and the likes in the desktop market, not something they want to do.

Re:Linux: Intel's friend and foe

[hopbine]

I don't know about Sun, but HPs long term plans are to ditch home grown chips - Alpha, HP-PA and even the otherpersons MIP chips - used in the HP(Tandem)non-stop- and switch to Itanium.

Little wonder, with Intel in

[pair-a-noyd]

Billy boys' pocket.
Gate$ must be nervou$ over thi$..

Too bad Billy boy. Your evil plan for global domination and en$lavement of every living creature on earth has been exposed.

You will fail. Linux will exterminate your filthy grip on the throats of freedom loving people everywhere.

DEATH TO M$ !!

Missing the Point

[overshoot]

Intel is pushing -- hard -- for TCPA/Palladium/NGSCB/whatever. The idea is to make sure that non-TCPA systems are completely left out of the information ecology. With Intel, AMD, Microsoft, and IBM on board the fix is pretty much in.

Or it would be, if nobody like the Chinese got uppity. Planning to go with non-TCPA software is certainly Not Part of the Plan, and could derail all of Intel's plans.

That just can't be allowed now, can it?

Re:Missing the Point

[mercuryresearch]

Intel is also making every effort to emphasize that all the trusted/digitial restrictions infrastructure can be disabled as well.

The fiasco with digital serial numbers and the impact that had on potential sales is very clear in their minds, and they don't want a repeat. It's clear that there are markets for TCPA, etc AND markets for free computing. No sane company is going to make a move that limits their markets.

Re:Missing the Point

[Alsee]

emphasize that all the trusted/digitial restrictions infrastructure can be disabled as well.

Yes, that is one of the most insidious things about it.

Imagine you had a car with handcuffs in the steering wheel. You can disable the handcuffs, but then the car can't take unleaded gas. No one sells leaded gas anymore, so it is effectively impossible to disable the handcuffs and still drive your car anywhere.

As more and more software requires TCPA/NGSCB and more and morer of websites only work with TCPA/NGSCB and a variety of hardware only works with TCPA/NGSCB then disabling the digital restictions techniology makes your computer less and less useful. It becomes virtually impossible to turn it off and still use the computer at all.

-

FUD, see DVD vs VCD

[Stavr0]

When Asia decided to go ahead and create their own video disc regional standard (VCD, SVCD) the same arguments were thrown: It's not compatible, you'll be locked out of the world market, yadda yadda...

Today, the majority DVD player now support VCD, SVCD (which have NO DRM whatsoever) and MP3s (bonus). DiVX;-) support is just starting to appear. I betcha by XMAS the 'de facto' player will list DVD,SVCD,VCD,DiVX,WMA,MP3 compatibility (and OGG too hopefully).

Simple marketing: Q: "How do we get all those people with DVD players to spend money on a new one this Xmas?" A: Release a new line with new ATTRACTIVE features.

Re:FUD, see DVD vs VCD

[Anonymous Coward]

VCD and SVCD were created by Philips, not by "Asia."

True, the format is popular in Asia and other places, but mostly because it is so easy and cheap to pirate.

Nothing really to see here

[finkployd]

I just read the whole article (no, I'm not new here) and it sounds to me like Intel is just telling China not to create proprietary regional standards that will not interoperate with the rest of the world. No mention of "don't use Linux" or "use microsoft and be happy", so off with the tin foil hats.

The interesting thought exercise is what happens if China and their massive population suddenly get their act together and emerge as a technological powerhouse? Then they can tell intel to conform to their standards or risk losing a giant revenue stream.

Finkployd

Re:Nothing really to see here

[grendel's mom]

Then [Asia] can tell intel to conform to their standards or risk losing a giant revenue stream.

Exactly. This is the only reason Barrett has taken this position. This has nothing to do with Intel's worry about "proprietary" anything or their concern for Asian software markets. Intel is only worried they will have to adapt to the (massive) emerging market in Asia.

let's rephrase, shall we?

[sdibb]

To adopt unique regional technologies would mean "not participating in the rest of the world because you have a proprietary standard, and not being able to inter-operate with the rest of the world. I fail to see the benefit".

Substitue "regional" for "corporate", and there is Microsoft's business plan. Came out with plenty of benefit for them, it seems.

I can see a couple of good reasons that they would want to develop their own operating system -- no Western influence in its development, security, and language, to say the least. Not too many programs ported to Chinese that I know of.

this isn't about why intel being MS's bitch

[SHEENmaster]

It's about communism hurting prgress.

I'm all for voluntary adoption of Free software, but legally mandating it is utter bullshit.

Re:this isn't about why intel being MS's bitch

[Catbeller]

I'm all for free trade myself, but sometimes a government, for the good of its people, not just the businessmen, has to take a hand to prevent a disaster -- in this case, a US monopoly dictating computing standards to the entire nation of China.

The government is doing what governments are supposed to do. Serve the interest of all, not just the interested few. By doing this, they will obviously boost their own IT sector, and free it from ruthless exploitation by a runaway US monopoly.

Remember, Microsoft no longer operates in a free market. It is a monopoly, which means it owns and controls the market, no matter how you wiggle around the term "owns".

China, it can be argued, is just leveling the field. Too bad for Bill.

The US has always used government fiat to boost its own businesses. We ignored copyright laws of other countries until the 20th century. The guv built a highway system to crush the railroad companies, build the auto giants, and create massive susburban growth to the detriment of the cities and public education therein.

It chooses winners and losers by awarding defense contracts. It controls interstate commerce. Regulates imports to benefit American interests. It now chooses who can and cannot run foreign countries. In Iraq, the administration has now served notice that the nation MUST permit foreign interests to control their public and private companies.

In comparison, China telling MS to take a hike ain't so bad.

Re:this isn't about why intel being MS's bitch

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn, pad're ya nailed that one. Speaks for many of us voters. Citizens would be well served by such a voice. Not planning a Congressional run at some bus_nazi, neo_stalin globalist slimeball ... are ya ?

Re:this isn't about why intel being MS's bitch

[Anonymous Coward]

The government is doing what governments are supposed to do. Serve the interest of all, not just the interested few. ...

China, it can be argued, is just leveling the field. Too bad for Bill.

I would argue that the Chinese government cares even less about the rights of its citizens than the US government does about our own rights (although recent events call that into question). The Chinese government, quite reasonably IMHO, doesn't want to be dependent on a US-based company for its government, military, and commercial software needs. The fact that it would benefit its local software companies is of secondary importance (although certainly not unimportant).

I say this because saying they're doing this just to "level the [playing] field" I think is misinterpreting their intentions and putting a benign spin on the dictates of an obviously totalitarian regime.

Re:this isn't about why intel being MS's bitch

[Anonymous Coward]

You are more right than you know. There is a school of political thought that goes something like;
voters put people in office to make decisions that will best benefit the entire population - so if those in power in the PRC (yes, although a communist state..) want to steer the IT direction *away* from a foreign monopoly for the better of China, then really, they are doing their job.
Slightly off topic - but /. posters have also made the point that Munich is throwing out M$ not only for $ reasons (don't quote the higher entry cost, it will be cheaper pretty quick, and be cheaper forever...) but to implement Suse, the German linux distro. Although both China's and Munich's decisions show a bit of jingoism - who can blame them? Hell, if I had the time to write my own OS just to escape M$ crap I would too. Slap the future IT of an entire government, or people on my plate and you can bet the first question I would ask is: why are we running anything on foreign, closed source programs?????

just my 2 cents.

shakin in their cubes

[Dizzo]

The only reason Intel would issue such a statement is fear. Why else would a company go out on a limb to help a possible competitor? If they can dissuade them now, then they don't have to worry about them in 10 years.

Government vs Corporation

[nixium]

Hmmm... Comrades, what do you think of those capitalists telling us what to do? (Red) Flag off, Wintel!

Language

[hey]

Yes, they really should stop speaking Chinese there too. Don't they know that the rest of the world speaks English.

FUD: Intel scared

[Lugor]

With a population of 2 billion people. China is a 200lb gorilla, and everyone knows it. If China, with rest of Asia went 'standard' or 'non-standard', whatever they choose- with that much weight to throw around- it will become a STANDARD. Intel and M$ knows this and are warning off.
In the short-term it may be good for Asia, in the long-term it will be good for Asia, because instead of Asian companies trying to be compatible with US/European standards, it will be the other way around.
Even with a measily 10% of population using computers in China (if in the future that should happen), it would larger then the WHOLE U.S. population.

200lb gorilla indeed.

Re:FUD: Intel scared

[Camel Racer]

200 kg gorilla would be more persuasive. Standards indeed.

Re:FUD: Intel scared

[demonbug]

Even with a measily 10% of population using computers in China (if in the future that should happen), it would larger then the WHOLE U.S. population.

Well, according to the CIA Factbook, the current population of China is about 1.3 billion. If 10% of the population used computers, that would be about 130 million people, or a little less than half the population of the U.S. and IIRC, about the same number of people as are on the internet here. So yeah, it would be very significant, but it wouldn't exactly eclipse the west.

Re:FUD: Intel scared

[MasonMcD]

Yikes! That gorilla must be having a slimfast for breakfast, a slimfast for lunch, and a healthy dinner, just like Tommy Lasorda!

Go back to the donuts and McDonalds, and maybe he can get back to his fighting weight of 800 lbs.

Maybe there's a geek scale of gorillas (excluding UNIX silverbacks who easily can sit on and smother a 200 lb gorilla).

"After years of jolt cola and pop rocks, he's 96 lbs soaking wet" = 83 lb bonobo

"Too many late night pizza and mountain dew coding sessions" = 120 lb chimp

"Exercise limited to resistance from haptic input devices" = 200 lb gorilla juvenile

"Modified the blaster worm just for kicks" = 800 lb gorilla.

OK. That last one was uncalled for.

...OK

[vwjeff]

So let me get this straight. This is such a shock to me:) Intel wants a developing nation to fork out the dough for Windows. I can barely afford XP.

For Security's Sake.

[Anonymous Coward]

...such a strategy might protect local companies and markets in the short term....

...how will you Chinese folk expect to get in on the latest viruses long term if you don't run The Proprietary OS?

Re:Open reply

[arabagast]

I can understand you problem, but you need to sit down, take a stresspill and sing some merry tunes.

-A

short vs long term...

[lfourrier]

short term : chinese jobs are protected
middle term : West is implementing trusted,drm compliant, whatever systems. China cannot sell (unlawful material, because open)
long term : illegality considered illegal barrier to trade by wto. West can use free chinese programs/systems. Intel & Microsoft become irrelevants

One can always dream...

Short-term AND long-term thinking

[Txiasaeia]

"...such a strategy might protect local companies and markets in the short term, [but] it would make it more difficult for Asian companies to participate in world markets..."

Um, yeah, I don't think that the purpose of the Dragon chip is to participate in world markets, mmkay?

Re:FP

[Anonymous Coward]

Barrett is my middle name.

This is an empty threat.

[The Revolutionary]

What, is the U.S. going to just stop trade with China because China won't support the latest Microsoft DRM system? Hah! Or even reduce trade over it? Hah! If your business depends on communication and interoperability with systems in the Asian market, either you will adapt or you will be needing to explain to your shareholders just why you have made poor management decisions, leading to vendor lock-in and an inability to interoperate with the rest of the world. Good luck.

The worst possible outcome for Asian consumers is that they will not be able to download shitty RIAA-owned albums and play them in shiny new Windows Media Player 11 (or whatever it is up to these days).

But this won't be a problem, because those consumers who want to will be playing this same music on their free open source OSes, "illegally", and enjoying every minute of it.

Re:This is an empty threat.

[Anonymous Coward]

|consumers who want to will be playing this
|same music
Why would the Chinese listen to American music?

Hardware versus Software

[richard_willey]

It's interesting to notice the difference in focus between Craig Barrett's statements and the Slashdot's focus.

Barrett is an executive at Intel. His primary concern is whether the Chinese or the Indians will succeed with localizing microprocessor design. Needless to say, he is predisposed to believe that these efforts should not be undertaken.

Here on Slashdot, the primary focus is the various attempts taking place in Asia to standardize around Linux. From my own perspective, I don't think that this effort is logically equivalent to the Barrett's hardware example. I don't see the effort at promoting Linux as an attempt to fork the code base, but rather an effort to unify the development community around a single standard. With luck, this effort will result in better contributions to the core Linux code base.

Good one.

[danielsfca2]

Mod ARTICLE +5 Funny! In other news, Intel's new processor, the Pentium 5 FUD edition, only runs Windows XP. The wonders of DRM and trusted computing ensure that any rogue OS's cannot be installed on your new computer.

I think what Intel is saying

[HangingChad]

Is that the Chinese risk not recognizing DRM and other media control technologies. If 1/3 of the planet's population opts out, how are they ever going to be able to stuff digital rights management down the rest of our throats? The nerve of those people throwing a crimp in those carefully crafted plans! I somehow don't think the Chinese are going to lay awake nights worrying about being marginalized.

And of course Intel welcomes the Chinese production of high-quality, low-cost computer chips.

Translation:

[Kjella]

We intend to lock people into proprietary formats, preferably DRM encumbered so we may legally keep others from creating compatible programs or import filters so you can use alternative OSs.

Microsoft is working very hard to keep there from being a "critical mass" of people using alternatives, so that everyone "muat" buy Windows/Office because that's what everybody else uses. Once people start expecting compatibility with "everyone", where everyone includes Linux, the game is already half lost. Regardless of whether they actually use Linux at that time, Microsoft doesn't want to give that alternative, simply because it hurts those running Linux who can't communicate properly with Windows users far more than the other way around.

Kjella

China = 12% of Intel's Revenue

[American AC in Paris]

The head of the world's largest semiconductor company said efforts to use local standards to protect and nurture local technology companies had been tried before and produced only short-term results.

Heh.

Heh-heh.

So, Mr. Barrett, was the last time this sort of thing has been tried in a locale of 1.2 billion people?

Basically, Intel is scared. If this takes off, Intel will suffer dearly in a market that currently generates 3.2 billion dollars of revenue for them. Roughly 12% of their total revenue comes from China alone.

You'll forgive me, Mr. Barrett, if I have trouble keeping a straight face.

Re:China = 12% of Intel's Revenue

[American AC in Paris]

Ech, replying to my own post...

If you dig a bit deeper into Intel's financials, you'll find that China represents a huge chunk of Intel's growth since 2000--while their total revenue has dropped from 33.7 billion to 26.7 billion, revenue from China has increased from 2.15 billion to 3.2 billion.

In 2000, China was about 6.3% of Intel's total revenue. Today, it's nearly double that. If China's plans succeed, Intel loses both a sizeable chunk of their revenue and one of their biggest growth markets.

Sorry, did I say 'one of their biggest growth markets'? I meant 'biggest'.

Re:China = 12% of Intel's Revenue

[Anonymous Coward]

How much of that is from software sales? How much of that is from multiprocessor sales?

(Hint: less than you think)

How much of that is from flash sales? How much of that is from embedded processor sales?

Nice try with the link to the financials, but all you did was prove that you don't know how to read them. Intel does more than sell Centrinos, you know.

Re:China = 12% of Intel's Revenue

[American AC in Paris]

I'm not suggesting that Intel would lose 12% of their revenue. Yes, Intel does more than sell chips, but their stakes are nonetheless high in this matter.

Yes, I understand that there are nuances of financial reports that are beyond my comprehension. Somehow, though, I don't think this shortcoming invalidates my point. Are you suggesting that China moving from Intel chips to their own local fabs wouldn't be a significant blow to Intel's business?

Is that why apple does fine.

[headbulb]

Does intel think that they are going to tell china, "you are going to fail".

If china wants to develop for a different platform. Its their choice. If they also want to develop on a different processor then what intel offers then that is their choice. Personally I like it. If china/asain succeed's not only will they have a nice platform (hopefully) They will have a cpu that isn't pulled down by all hacks to make it modern.. I Say 'Hey china go ahead'.

Why should china put money into other country's when it can put it into their own.

Really I think intel just wants money. But their solution is just a hack for backword compatibilty.
Theres really a point where backword compatbility stifles things.
(the itanium is nice tho, since its not x86 based.)

I will shutup before I get too offtopic.

You know...

[DdJ]

...when a big American corporation feels that they can go ahead and issue warnings to the freakin' government of China, that might just inadvertently send the signal that the government is doing the right thing in attempting to prevent becoming beholden to "standards" that are largely controlled by big American corporations...

Intel does not like Chineese manufactured CPUs

[MarkWatson]

My $199 Chineese PC has components, including the CPU that are also manufactured in China.

Except for writing my new book (my publisher supplied me with Word macros that I must use), I find this $199 PC with SuSE Linux to provide a super productive environment! When I get time to get back to work on my own products next December, my cheap Chineese PC meets all my needs (in my case, this is running Java JDK, ant, IntelliJ, Tomcat, Joram JMS, JBoss, etc.) I have to love low overhead and a $199 computer is a sweet price point that an Intel based machine would have a difficult time meeting.

Off course I expect noise like this from Intel!

Intel likes globalization when it favors them :-)

-Mark

Re:Intel does not like Chineese manufactured CPUs

[Kludge]

Can you get those in the US? If yes, where?

Re:Intel does not like Chineese manufactured CPUs

[mercuryresearch]

I'm sure he's referring to the VIA C3 CPU, and yes, they're availably in the US. Note that they use socket 370 (pentium III) motherboards.

The system is probably the cheap Lindows/etc systems sold through walmart.

Re:Intel does not like Chineese manufactured CPUs

[Anonymous Coward]

"My publisher provided me with VB macro viruses that I must use..." Find another publisher. One who accepts LaTex, Framemaker, html, Selectric(tm) typewriter, any format besides Word. Even if it's MS/publisher. What kind of clueless outfit does professional publishing in Word? It's definitely the wrong tool for the job!

Passing the SCO Crack Pipe

[Anonymous Coward]

So let me get this straight - a filthy-rich chip company is harrassing developing nations for using open source software solutions, which run great on the very chips the company makes?!? And calls open source solution proprietary?!?

The SCO crack pipe is making the rounds fast here in the States... And I think I know who's supplying the rock....

Note to the world from a US citizen: Please take Linux and use it to build up your nations' infrastructure, secure and inexpensive. You'll get a better OS, one YOU can control, and save money better spent on your population's well-being.

And if you have some democracy to spare, please export some to us/US. We appear to have run dry over here....

Nail on the head.

[zymano]

Sun and Intel don't like Linux. Too easy to switch to better alternatives. Not easy to lock-in customers as with Monopolysoft.

Red Flaggers Unite!

[nixium]

Go China, tell Wintel to take it's advice and shove it where the rising sun doesn't shine! Erm, and if you could just convince yourself to letting all those ex-students and political prisoners free, you'd be liked even more >%D

Re:you got me

[SatanicPuppy]

Heh. If you check the WHOLE link, you can save your optic nerve tremendous trauma.

Regional Standard Hardware or Software?

[ps_inkling]

Apparently the Intel CEO didn't read the article -- they're not creating new silicon, they're choosing to use Linux for their operating system.

But, even if China does create new silicon and computing hardware, the input data and output information can still conform to international standards (ASCII, HTML, etc.) Just because the information was created without profitting Intel or AMD hardware sales does not make the information bad.

I understand he wants to protect potential profits from selling $billions of Intel hardware to China, but this FUD about incompatible standards doesn't cut it. Even if China were to make their own silicon, I'm sure a few patches to gcc would make their C++ code compile just fine for their new hardware. If China finds a way to make it (faster, cheaper, better; choose two) than what is available from current vendors, then they should make it.

One of the reasons that Open-Hardware is not generally available is the large cost of generating the silicon, and the logistics of distributing the hardware worldwide at a reasonable price. But if China is funding the fab factories, a key barrier is removed; and that should scare the beancounters at CPU manufacturers.

Re:Regional Standard Hardware or Software?

[iggymanz]

Heh, what China does might not have to conform to any standard. The countries of asia (including China + Asia) are so big, with projected market growth so huge, that they could very well tell the world what the standards are . Face it, the western computing/IT/telecommunications world will soon be way, way outnumbered.

Chinese FUD

[boudie]

Looks like you can get your FUD with egg rolls now.

Clearly?

[roystgnr]

I agree that the headline of the Financial Times is grossly misleading, but for fewer reasons: simply because none of the quotes from Barrett even mention Linux, so there's no reason to believe he isn't just talking about the asian CPU plans.

Even if you didn't read the rest of the article, it's clear he's talking about "proprietary standards," which linux clearly is not.

Here, however, I'm not so sure. Just because something is "clearly" true to you, me, or anyone else capable of handling a dictionary and boolean logic doesn't mean it's necessarily clear to a business executive. Have you read Darl McBride's open letter? Jonathan Schwartz's eWeek interview? Perhaps Craig Barrett has also fallen into this expanding black hole from whence no rational thought can escape.

You craven anti-Americanism has no place here!

[Anonymous Coward]

Go spread your disnformation somewhere else! Every right thinking person knows that everyone in China speaks English. Well, Chineese English...

Re:You craven anti-Americanism has no place here!

[gfody]

aka engrish

Boo. Hiss.

[ToadSprocket]

By 2010, Intel said, China would be the single largest market for its PC and communications chips.

*Waves hand* This is not the proprietary chip you're looking for.
*Waves hand* You don't need to use open source software.

In all seriousness, even if what he were saying was true, which I am not convinced of, it just sounds so self serving coming from Intel. (I know, self serving statements are so rare in this industry)

I would think that even if there were 1 billion machines running the 'Chairman MaoOS v 1.3', there would be people outside China, willing to write/port apps to it.

How can he say this?

[grendel's mom]

"...efforts to use local standards to protect and nurture local technology companies had been tried before and produced only short-term results." and "...is there an advantage to having a proprietary standard in your country?"

It worked nicely for Intel and Microsoft. This is exactly why these companies dominate their markets. They have forced standards. They are doing the same thing now by forcing DRM on consumers (and YES, DRM will be forced..just watch).

So instead, Barrett expects Asia to allow Intel and Microsoft to create standards for them? Zzzzzt.

It is absolutely clear why Barrett is taking this position: "By 2010, Intel said, China would be the single largest market for its PC and communications chips." If Asia goes off, builds their own OS to their own standards, Intel and Microsoft will be threatened.

Build away Asia! This will force change and flexibility on the industry. Stagnation only benefits those that are intrenched.

Heaven Forbid

[Fubar411]

Heaven forbid a Communist country get behind in technology.

So XML, XSL and Linux are strategies for losing?

[crovira]

First: Intel warning a potential customer that not buying their product might screw them on standards is really self-serving.

Next: Like there are no other CPU architectures?

Hey, maybe the Chinese would like to buy licences for the right to build Macs and use OS X, as long as they promise to keep them over there...

Did anyone actually read the article

[codepunk]

He mentions nothing of Linux and as a matter of fact said that stimulation of local software development would be the right direction (translation go with your linux plans but leave the hardware to us). Now of course he is going to say this. I think in the short term they need to be trying to keep a finger on AMD which is about to make their lives miserable with the release of their 64 bit chip.

strategy

[synonymous]

..including standards using Linux-based software, WE may be doomed to failure, since 'such a strategy might protect local companies and markets in the LONG term, it would make it more difficult for AMERICAN companies to participate in ASIAN markets.

Windows the standard?

[nova20]

The way I'm reading the article, Intel is making the point that China will be isolated because other world markets use Windows...

Am I the only one that can see the problem here? I thought Linux was rising up in the ranks among commercial businesses worldwide.

Maybe I'm just reading it wrong.

/tim

why not Sparc?

[guile*fr]

I believe the sparc design is freely available,
certification may not be free thought.

and support for sparc compiler is already there.

Why Intel is doomed

[randall_burns]

Basically China is well on the way to becoming a larger economy than either the US or EU. Other regional powers like India and Indonesia have a strong incentive to go along with a China/Japan/South Korea backed standard---quite simply it will be cheaper. There are also quite a few places in the world that would rather no rely on US based technology(i.e. The Islamic world and some of Latin America/Africa fit that category)

Now, I suspect that at first, this new Asian/Linux standard won't be markedly higher performance or more visually attractive than the Wintel standard. However, if this Asian consortium honors its copyleft obligations, we'll see a large block of mission critical applications running under Linux that can be evaluated by a recompile on radically different hardware. (i.e. we will see stuff like decent, enterprise level database applications on this Linux platform-and the Chinese government may find it in their interests to just fund the existing open source projects rather than going to folks like Oracle).

There is already magic sitting around that has the potential to eat Intel's lunch. In particular, I like the stuff that Chuck more has done with Colorforth and his Forth processors. Those designs are at present taylored for very low power applications-but given proper incentives, someone might figure out how to do something with a lot more power than current desktop designs. This Asian initiative means that the the software for real, mission-critical applications could be available for an appropriate recompile.

China is just the ultimate "big customer". They are big enought that they don't have to cater to Intel or Microsoft. By choosing Linux, China is empowering a software constituency that is capable of beating Wintel technologically. The likely end result is that Wintel will find themselves as the technological backwater. I suspect Microsoft is in a better position to adapt to these changes, but Intel has a serious problem ahead.

Intel invests in China

[Anonymous Coward]

Intel just invested 10 mil in china! here

Who's got less of a clue? Submitter or FT?

[glrotate]

From the FT artice:

Mr Barrett's comments come two weeks after officials from China, Japan and South Korea agreed to co-operate on the development of software applications based on the free Linux computer operating system

Barrett's point wasn't about Linux. The FT just threw that angle in to get the suckers riled up, and it worked.

The FT could have said that Barrett warned against "proprietary" standards based on binary arithmatic. Note it's not the technical details of the implementation he's concerned about, its their proprietary nature.

Andy Grove delivered a very simmilar speech to European bigwigs about a decade ago and he was right.

Mr. Barrett -- champion of standards.

[Camel Racer]

When is Mr. Barrett going to fairly castigate the US for a plethora of non-G3 cell phone standards, and a failure to switch to the metric system? Not to mention TV signals (NTSC == Never Twice the Same Colour), English spelling, and the proper side of the road to drive on.

India Good. China Bad.

[Anonymous Coward]

India good little colony. Send H1-B. Very good.
China bad. Try and compete. China bad colony.
China is next Iraq/Yugoslavia/Palestine.

The bigger picture

[Anonymous Coward]

as soon as Intel floods the market with TCPA hardware, china will be able to flood the market with TCPA free hardware. We will probably see the same situation real soon with Intel as we saw with traditional enternaiment electronic manufacturers which stuck to the region code.

I'm pretty sure Intel is aware of that, China might be the axe to their well thought out TCPA plan where they tried to bring the entire PC industry into one boat. The pretty much know as soon as non TCPA hardware floods the market TCPA is dead!

Intel Warning

[hackus]

Oh Gee...

You better not let prevent us from taking over your markets of 3 Billion people, or we won't allow you access to our 400 Million....

Errr...yeah riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiigggghhht.

Fact is, like it or not, China could build its own products, and all of its own technology, and completely shut the West out and make one hell of a killing.

They do not need us.

If you ask any Chinese technology business over there, they do not like the fact American companies think they can't do anything worth while in computing, space, science...etc unless western companies invade their markets.

I think during the next 10 years we are going to have one hell of a surprise in store for ourselves as China tells us where to stick our computers and our software.

-gc

Re:The immorality of Open Source

[ethanrider]

I can't be completely sure that your argument isn't simply satire, however I will offer an answer in case it is not.

Having read the article thoroughly, this startling news shows the flaws in the brewing Open Source Zeitgeist that is gripping the software community. Have you considered that providing software for free to countries such as China is essentially tacit support for oppressive regimes?

It does not follow that from having read the article that your argument makes sense, in particular, the fact that you read the article is completely irrelevant to the remainder of your argument.

Far-fetched? Think about it: With MySQL, the People's Army will now be able to do multiple queries on their tables of democratic activists in Olog(n) time instead of lengthy searches in card catalogs. The bureaucratic overhead previously allowed activists enough time to flee the country. How about building cheap firewalls so the people can't get the unbiased reporting that CNN provides? Or using Apache to publish lists of Falun Gong people to their police forces instantly? I doubt that never crossed your minds when you were coding away in your parents' basements. Consider putting that little thought in your mental resolv.conf file.

Your argument is absurd. It is patently obvious that databases, firewalls and web servers are not designed for the purpose of oppression. Even assuming that such tools were designed to oppress people (which is silly at face value), it does not follow that designing open source counterparts to ALREADY EXISTING technologies makes it any easier for a government the size of China to deal out oppression. If you are going to posit these tools are going to be used immorally, there is no reason to believe that fear of simple copyright violation would prevent regimes from using extant proprietary tools to without payment to accomplish the same means.

Think about it: Just because a screwdriver can be used as a weapon in a fight does not mean a screwdriver is an inherently bad thing. Tools can be used for various purposes, some of which are obviously not their primary use. The tool itself is not a bad thing, it is the USER of the tool that should be judged as morally culpable. When a tool author introduces an entirely novel technology into the world, it would seem prudent to make an effort to discern whether or not this technology will more likely lead to harm or benefit of others. In introducing a tool that is not new technology into the world, such a moral consideration is mitigated by the fact that the technology is already available.

If that does not concern you ( which it probably doesn't, since the slashdot.org paradigm is publishing articles about how not to pay for things ), consider something else. When China eventually goes to war with Taiwan, we want to be able turn their command and control facilities into the computing equivalent of a train-wreck. One of the advantages of Windows never mentioned in the article is the ability of Microsoft to remotely deactivate Windows XP in the case of a national emergency. Thanks to GNU/Lunix, Taiwan will be on a collision course with the mainland in the near future.

Even if I accept your argument that China will go to war with Taiwan, and the further claim that "we want to be able turn their command and control facilities into the computing equivalent of a train-wreck", it does not follow that the availabilty of open source makes such an action impossible (an EM pulse doesn't check your vendor before rendering your electronics useless). Additionally your argument is based on the premise that outside of open source, Windows technology is the only possible source of command and control capability: this is obviously incorrect. Futher, assume all of China's current military uses Windows exlusively: it doesn't follow thatv everyhting is remotely available to be deactivated. Obviously, if China wanted

Hey...

[Greyfox]

If the Chinese can build a better chip than Intel can, I'll buy it from them. Or did you think that only corporations could benefit from use of overseas resources? It was automobiles in the 70's -- I remember the big 3 whining that they were going to go out of business because people were buying the (better) japanese imports. Is it the chipmakers who are going to repeat history in the 00lies?

As to who can make the better chip, well China has a workforce of a billion people to draw on. The USA has a workforce maybe a quarter of that. Intel may be able to field 250 of those 1 in a million genius engineers, China, 1000. And if China and Japan team up, well I'd say that'd spell the end of the USA's dominance of the industry. Maybe I should start working on my Mandarin...

Re:Hey...

[whittrash]

I am sure the Chinese can do very well making computers and chips. However, 90% of their population is peasants, not chip engineers. The educated portion of the population is equivalent to the USA's population, who live in segregated cites. The peasants need a visa to even visit these cities. Thus it seems unlikely they will suddenly leap to the ultimate height of power, without mobilizing the masses. It seems hardly likely that China will be able to turn this around in 5 or 10 years, maybe 50 years. The real story is the US wanting to ensure perpetual dominance of the world so we can enjoy our unrivaled power and our place in the sun, USA #1, USA #1, USA #1.

Eh?

[4of12]

such a strategy might protect local companies and markets in the short term, [but] it would make it more difficult for Asian companies to participate in world markets.

Given the size of China, Japan and Korean markets combined, I'd say that statement could be turned on its head.

The World markets might find solutions based on the Asian standards to be perfectly adaptable to simpler Western alphabets and to be less expensive, too.

Personally, I'm glad to see an unbiased, ....

[burgburgburg]

reasonable point of view about this issue. I believe that Barret is honestly and forthrightly expressing good advice, unburdened with personal aspirations or concerns. I believe that aliens have been stealing spaceships full of Gouda cheese as weapons against the Ant People of Sector Omega. I hope that people can give Mr. Barret the benefit of the doubt that he is trying to use his experience to help the governments of Asia on this important issue.

Re:Personally, I'm glad to see an unbiased, ....

[penguinlust]

I believe you are one of the Ant people of sector Omega. If you were from earth you would have already realized that an America CEO does not give a truck load of gouda about giving forthright and good advice.

What the chinese government is proposing does posible harm to Intel.

Re:Personally, I'm glad to see an unbiased, ....

[Anonymous Coward]

I, for one, welcome our new Ant People Overlords.

A reaction to slashdot cover stories?

[Gumber]

C'mon, Barret isn't reacting to Slashdot cover stories, is he?

Isn't he reacting to the trends covered in earlier Slashdot cover stories?

I see...

[vandan]

So firstly, Prescott is 64-bit and Intel needs a 64-bit version of Windows to run on it 'cause hell will freeze over before they use AMD's 64-bit instruction set.

And then Intel start lecturing Asian countries about being obediant little consumers, and buying Windows, and not cutting off their nose to spite their face by investing in Linux.

What was the first bit again? Oh that's right ... Intel needs Microsoft big-time or their Prescott will fail. Hmmmmmm.

Free market?

[www.microsoft.com]

By 1980 the American auto industry had lost its first-place standing to Japan. In fact, Japanese auto imports accounted for a large portion of annual car sales in the U.S. One out of every four cars sold in 1980 were imports. Many buyers in the Seventies concluded that Japanese autos were of higher quality than American-made cars, and were less expensive besides. They also got very good gas mileage, as a rule. With the oil crisis triggered by OPEC's decision to curtail production and raise prices on crude oil, fuel economy was top priority among many American car buyers. The aptly named Dodge Omni Miser got an estimated 50 miles-per-gallon on the highway. So did the Dodge Colt hatchback. Under the canny stewardship of Lee Iacocca (whose 1984 autobiography broke bestseller records), Chrysler began producing its K-model cars -- plain, gas-efficient, front-wheel-drive vehicles designed to challenge Japanese imports and put the company back on its feet. The $1.2 billion federal bailout helped too, as did the decision by the United Auto Workers to forego $600 million in new wage and benefit increases.) GM launched its new J-cars in early 1981. The Big Three automakers were in dire straits, going $4.2 billion in the red in 1980. Not since 1961 had they sold so few units. Ford and Chrysler suspended production at two major plants in November 1980. Nearly 200,000 auto workers were laid off. Chrysler cut its work force from 160,000 to 85,000. Detroit wanted Congress and the White House to do something to curtail the flood of car imports from Japan. After all, the auto industry accounted for one-fifth of the country's gross national product and employed one-sixth of its work force. American auto production had declined 30% in three years. As had happened in textiles and electronics, steel and shipbuilding, Americans found to their dismay that in yet another industry the ambitious and fiercely competitive Japanese were selling higher quality product at a low price. But protectionism was not to the liking of a confirmed free trader like President Reagan, and he sought instead a "gentleman's agreement" with the Japanese by which they would voluntarily curb their exports to the United States. Nearly two million Japanese cars and trucks were sold in the U.S. in 1980, and Reagan wanted a reduction of 25% in that number for at least the next few years. This was a tough pill for Japan to swallow, since exports to the American market accounted for almost one-half of its overseas auto sales. The Japanese foreign minister became an ardent free-trade advocate himself whenever the issue arose, which was ironic since Japan maintained high import barriers to protect its own home industries. Meeting with Reagan in May 1981, Prime Minister Zenko Suzuki predicted a satisfactory solution to the problem. American trade representatives hinted that protectionist legislation was probably just around the corner unless something was done. The Japanese got the message and car exports were curtailed.

it would make it more difficult for Asian companies to participate in world markets
There isn't free market. If China becomes 1st software producer some "friendly" actions will take place.

What if we changed a few words around?

[Colonel Panic]

'such a strategy might protect local companies and markets in the short term, [but] it would make it more difficult for Asian companies to participate in world markets.'

OK, China has over a billion people. Add in other parts of Asia that would like to participate and you've got a market that is something like 4 to 5 times as big as the US market. And then consider
that most of the European governments will probably be adopting Linux over the next five years... And then we'll see Barrett's quote being made by someone else in either Europe or Asia that goes something like:

'The strategey of sticking with Windows might protect local companies in the US (like Micro$oft) in the short term, but it would make it more difficult for American companies to participate in world markets.'

Actually, Barrett doesn't care much at all about Windows (he only cares as much as it promotes Intel CPUs) - he's most worried about China's own CPU (Red Dragon, or whatever it's called) improving to the point where it can be produced competitively with Intel's own CPUs. When that happens, Intel probably won't be selling too many units in China.

US companies: afraid of competition

[raw-sewage]

I see a lot of articles here on Slashdot that suggest many US companies are afraid of competition (Microsoft being the best example, Intel a close second). These corporations rise to the top of their industry, hailing the American capitalism that enables their growth. But when the creativity runs out, stagnation occurrs and money-hungry managers take over. A young, emerging company, who once sang the tune "Let's Invent Technology" matures into the grumpy old ogre sining "How Do We Hold Onto Marketshare?" The seeds of invention have long since vanished, and the marketing folks try to sell the manager's version of invention: "innovation".

Companies who were once concerned with pushing new technology and ideas now want to crush anyone or anything that threatens their cushy seat built on the ideas and creativity of yesterday.

Of course, to be fair, their are companies who, from their birth, don't care about science or technology, or bettering life for their fellow man; they are inherently sinister. But the once idealistic corporations described above are eventually consumed by the malaise of greed, and decay into equally sinister entities.

The point is: how can companies such as Microsoft and Intel, who are so quick to equate open source software with communism, call themselves capitalists, when they try so desparately to hinder competition? It is in the competition that we see the real invention. The market should decide whether or not that invention will be successful, not some greedy old millionaires who feel threatened by change and new ideas.

These companies quickly bastardize the same system that enabled their growth and success.

Re:US companies: afraid of competition

[Bull999999]

"their are companies who, from their birth, don't care about science or technology, or bettering life for their fellow man"

You know, there is a reason why they are called "for-profit" business instead of "non-profit.

Don't forget that IBM is also a for-profit mega corporation and they support and encourage Linux usage. Just as there are good and bad people in the world, there are good and bad businesses in the world as well.

"The market should decide whether or not that invention will be successful"

They already do. Otherwise, we'd all be drinking the New Coke and/or Crystal Pepsi.

Was there talk of proprietary standards?

[RichiP]

In the plans of China, Japan and Korea to develop their own system based on Linux, did they at any time mention establishing proprietart, local interoperability standards? As far as I can tell, they would develop their own OS and support software and adhere to global standards such as TCP/IP and other open standards (such as XML, etc.)

Does Intel know something about these local developments that we're not aware of?

Another good question is who decides on what becomes a global standard. It most certainly isn't Intel. This just boosts the need to have an international organization that is open to ALL countries without prejudice. So that countries like the aforementioned can participate in open standards development, yet not remain reliant on foreign software developers.

Does Asia need the rest of the world?

[cookie_cutter]

Between China and India alone, that's 2.2 Billion people, more than a large enough market to support a large software industry.

If I were Intel, I'd be pretty afraid too of being locked out of there.

Dragon (sort of on topic)

[mcc]

Quick question. In a previous Dragon-related thread on slashdot someone claimed that it would not be possible to sell the Dragon internationally becuase it is based on patented technologies that the patent owners have chosen not to do anything with. For the Dragon chip, the Chinese government hand-waved those patents away, but outside of China those patents would still apply and the chip would not be possible to sell.

Is this accurate?

Also: What is Taiwan's stance on the Dragon?

Maybe I missed something

[bigjnsa500]

Last time I checked, Intel is a hardware company not a software company. So what is the purpose of Intel muscling the Chinese about software?

Intel hardware always runs better on *nix anyway.

Re:Maybe I missed something

[weileong]

well, that's precisely why they can open up their mouths to talk about this topic.

considering how Intel has made a push in the past to support linux, it's quite obvious Barrett isn't talking. No, what's happening is that it's Ballmer talking through Barrett because otherwise Ballmer tells his engineers to knife Itanium in the back and support AMD64 exclusively.

When that's what you're facing, you bloody well say anything they tell you to say.

Hence, when the phone rings, you pick it up, and you hear "Go to China! Tell them they'll get locked out!!!", what you do is, you go to China and you tell them they'll get locked out.

Whether China goes Win32 or *nix, Intel can sell them chips, so they don't mind too much pushing this. It's not like Intel's being told to promote the AMD64 instruction set, now THAT would be an interesting thing to see.

Confuscious say...

[EverDense]

Confuscious say: "Country that lock themselves into buying technology soley from American companies, ultimately fucking themselves".

Protectionism is bad no matter which way you

[dh003i]

slice it. All it does is protect certain special-interest groups from competition at the expense of everyone else -- competitors and consumers alike. It also violates basic property rights. Protectionism is bad whether it's initiated in the US or in China. Another name for protectionalism is mercantilism, and there's a very insightful article on the harmful effects of it on Mises.org.

There's no reason why GNU/Linux needs protectionism from the government (in fact, in most cases, it's proprietary organizations like Microsoft that receive special government advantages, granting them monopolies and exemptions from competition). GNU/Linux is a superior product, and as MS Windows gets more and more bloated with each version, less and less secure, with less useful features added, all the while MS demanding hundreds for upgrades, the market will shift over to GNU/Linux.

The real danger...

[thepacketmaster]

I think the real danger that Intel is worried about is what the rest of the world will understand if China successfully makes its own CPU and Linux work. It will show that standards really do work, and that if you have the will, you don't need Microsoft, Intel, or any other monopolistic type of companies.

It's ironic (if I'm using the word correctly), that China, a country that is extremely repressive to its citizens, could adopt something as open-minded as open source. Maybe this is a good sign.

Re:The real danger...

[Anonymous Coward]

Quit listening to CNN, when was the last time you went to China.

Please get in a plane an go there, you will realize that it is you who is repressed.

Everyone is repressed to a degree (and they know it) but American are the only one that are not aware of their represssion

Re:The real danger...

[thepacketmaster]

I would probably feel repressed if I was an American, except I'm not.

"I am Canadian!"

Re:The real danger...

[ddimas]

No they are not open minded. They are thinking that if they allow the US to control their technology, then they'll get screwed.

They are doing the same thing to the US that the US did to the British in the 1800's.

This is a perfect example of long term strategic military thinking. You didn't really think the US won WW II because our soldiers were braver did you? The US won WW II by out producing the rest of the planet in terms of manufacturing.

History shows that the richer country usually wins the war.

Re:The real danger...

[HangingChad]

That would be a good example of irony. Another good example is Microshaft and Intel farming out their programming overseas, then whining like a bitch when a those very same nations collaborate to cut them out of the equation. Or is that hypocrisy? I get confused myself sometimes. :)

You Just Don't Get It

[overshoot]

But, even if China does create new silicon and computing hardware, the input data and output information can still conform to international standards (ASCII, HTML, etc.) Just because the information was created without profitting Intel or AMD hardware sales does not make the information bad.

Wrong.

It does make their bits bad, because in the Great New TCPA World BitMarket bits have to be tied to TCPA hardware and TCPA software, and anyone wanting to play in that game has to ask Intel, AMD, IBM, and Microsoft "Mother May I." Having someone (e.g. the Government of China) with the ability to sign their own bits would ruin the whole game.

China isn't just trying to save $...

[Anonymous Coward]

I think China has good reasons for being wary towards foreign software. Remember the NSA backdoor that the Swedes found in Lotus Notes software used by the Swedish government?
If the NSA plants backdoors in software even if it is used by a US-friendly, peace-friendly country, why would China trust any US software? And if that happened in pre-9/11 days, after 9/11 things could only get worse.
And it isn't just national security. There are rumours that NSA gave critical info intercepted by Echelon to Boeing to help the company win a contract over european Airbus.

Just conspiracy theories?
Maybe, but China wisely covers its backs just to make sure...

US Regional standards

[HermanAB]

are pretty much the norm for anything from radios, televisions, cell phones and DVDs(!). So, if the US market is large enough to sustain regionalism, why would China's be too small???

Anyway, everybody and his dog has been complaining about the east flouting copyright and patent laws. Now they are wailing about the east taking it to heart and going their own way - waaaaahhhh!!! They are not playing fair!!! Waaaahhhh!!! They are re-inventing the wheel instead of paying us royalties for our clunky wheels!!! Waaaahhhh!!!!

This Intel dummy should get real, but expect to hear a lot more of this wailing...

Lord of the Chips

[whittrash]

One chip to rule them all, one chipe to find them. One chip to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them.

Wrong

[whittrash]

China doesn't have 2 billion people. It is closer to one billion.

Funny

[appleLaserWriter]

This isn't an anti-Linux stance. It's a stance against customizing everything for China. Linux just makes it easier to do.

Funny, I use exactly the same argument when I recommend OS X or Linux for technology startups that are trying to create an innovative computational product. Windows will do a lot of really cool things right out of the box. When you try to do things that Microsoft's program managers didn't envision, you start to run into trouble.

Linux, OTOH, is only marginally useful out of the box. With some customization, it can be the basis of a powerful and successful business (go ask Real Networks about this).

OS X is great because it comes ready to go out of the box *and* can be easily customized to suit a new business model.

I just had a great insight into why Intel won't recommend OS X to Asian developers. Maybe it will come back to me after I post...

Re:Funny

[gpinzone]

Define what you mean by customizable. Do you mean things like the GUI? The TCP/IP stack? Some things were designed for interoperability and/or to provide a familiar interface. Changing them around doesn't exactly help your users.

Re:Who's got less of a clue? Submitter or FT?

[Malcontent]

What is China proposing that is proprietary?

To be rich is glorious.

[Sphere1952]

First IBM. Now china. I think I've woken up in bizarro-world.

It would, of course, be completely unthinkable ...

[Anonymous Coward]

... that China would come up with a useful,
cheap, alternative to the Personal Computer
as-we-know-it and make it a de facto standard
to be followed by the rest of the world due
to its large home market.

Yeah, that can't be - only white man can invent
computers; we all know that :-(

Toon Moene (g77 maintainer).

American opression

[sadangel]

This is just another case of an American corporation discouraging independent economic development. Whenever you see an American corporation mention "world markets," without exception, what they mean is American corporations exploiting the economies of other countries for their own gain.

Re:American opression

[ciphertext]

Hitachi, Sony, Hyundai, DeBeers, OPEC (though technically not a corporation), Nokia, Samsung, Mitsubishi, Burberrys, BP, Daihmler-Chrysler, IKEA, Saab, BMW, Panasonic, Toshiba, MSI, Soyo Tec, etc... There are many successful, non-American, companies, that work in the world market. Do they not exploit the economies of other countries for their own gain? What would you like America to do in those situations? How do you define economic exploitation? At some point in time, the economies of any nation will be tied somewhat to the economy of the United States, as a large percentage of consumer spending occurs in the United States. Chances are, if you make it to be sold on a global scale, it can be bought somewhere in the U.S. I don't think that you have enough information to make the statement

Whenever you see an American corporation mention "world markets," without exception, what they mean is American corporations exploiting the economies of other countries for their own gain.

. There are too many corporations to list that do business globally.

Hmm.

[jellomizer]

"it would make it more difficult for Asian companies to participate in world markets."

I am not sure how thats so. HTTP and HTML is mostly standardized among most servers. XML and Network protocols can usually work with systems of different types. Open Standards is not always Open Source and vice versa. But there using a different OS is not going to make participating in world markets any more difficult. Email is still email, Web is still web. If you are going to be opening up any more protocols to the outside world your generally crazy. participating in world markets is helped by technology but technology is not needed. Give me a Sailboat and ill ship the papers to china and back. And we can still compete in the world afairs.

This would be a great Kung Fu movie,

[whittrash]

OS programmer and a chip maker who are Chinese gentlement, and Kung Fu experts are attacked by M$ and Intel assasins intent on dishonoring the Chinese people and culture. I would pay $7 to see that. I might even buy the DVD.

Intel's real concern...

[Eric Damron]

"There has also been discussion, especially in China, of developing standardised microprocessors and other types of chips."

There is Intel's only real concern. I hardly think that Intel gives a rip about which OS China chooses to run as long as China uses CPUs made by Intel.

Re:India Good. China Bad.

[Anonymous Coward]

And the poodle Tony Blair will help us, right Tony?.

Oops.... (Tony pees in his paints)

Forking Does Not Make Sense

[Idou]

Okay, say I am China. I like Linux cause it runs on many different platforms, supports a lot of different applications, and is constantly being developed (the result of being a truly open platform).

So, now I am going to make a lot of "developments" that break compatiability so that my flavor will not run on as many future platforms, not have as many different applications, and will only be developed by my own developers (who lack the expertise of the rest of the community)?

Maybe China will initially try to maintain a broken branch, but they will soon find out that this is much too costly and the benefits far too small.

When the most valuable aspect of a standard is that it is open, forking/closing it off does not make sense.

Re:Forking Does Not Make Sense

[IM6100]

'Openness' has historically not been a priority for China. With their populatation, a closed market for computers and computer software will work fine. They have many smart software developers. They can take any GPL'd code they want and do whatever they want with it. Do you really think anybody is going to stop them when they do?

agree

[mehtars]

I for one agree with barret in this. If china goes ahead and, as a nation promotes one processor/operating system over another- just on merits of where it is developed, over letting the markets decide, undoubtedly they might be at a compartive disadvantage.
Instead they should continue to use the pirated versions of word and excel that they have running around....

Rest of the world?

[christophe]

Whole Asia, including China and India, is already more than half of the world. That's surely enough for them.
And that's surely more than half of the world of computer makers and plants...

Someone should inform Intel about...

[Eudial]

Someone should inform Intel of inter platform compability, as it is fairly uncommon in the Windoze market.

Help! Help!

[Aldric]

I'm being repressed!

Re:The immorality of Open Source

[ddimas]

You're funny. Are you a Right Wing Republican AI? Maybe that rabid Coulter woman? You obviously went to college, too bad you did'nt learn anything.

Chung Kuo

[Read Icculus]

Here's my 2c, here instead of in your journal as your entry is very on topic. Your forecast seems a bit pessimistic to me, and somewhat culturally biased, ("The invisible hand will determine maximum efficiency in the market place"). Obviously the Chinese have a somewhat different view on economic matters than just letting Smith's invisble hand do it's thing in their country. What do the Chinese have to gain from letting any and all foreign companies sell their wares? The Chinese currently only care about the things that they truly need/want - like mobile phones, steel, oil, and soon automobiles. For every foreign camera and tv that is bought in China there is a transfer of money away from their country. Why should they let this happen when they make plenty of their own consumer electronics? They obviously see the same thing on the CPU/Software side. Making their own goods means becoming self-sufficient and not having to spend money outside their economy on relatively expensive foreign products. Something that they see as beneficial. The Chinese have a definite memory of the Hung Maos carving their country up into spheres of influence and buying and selling whatever they wanted. Now they want to have things on their own terms, if they want a company to build a factory in China it will happen - only as much capitalism as they see necessary. It is not what we have been taught is the way to attain an effective economy, but it is certainly working for the Chinese. They are modernizing at an amazing rate, an expected 8% growth rate, with stated aims to quadruple GDP by 2020. Would they be doing better if they were capitalists? Who knows? But obviously they would not be in control to the degree that they are.

1 - The average Chinese income is predicted to jump 250% to $3,500 by 2020. Any arrested development from the non-floating yuan is more than made up for by the truly massive rate of growth. As the average middle-class person in China will become wealthy enough to trade in their bike for a car, they will also be able to afford foreign and local goods, regardless of the possibility of a slight increase in local prices.

2 - Even if this forecasted increase in corruption comes about, at most it could only slow down the growth rate by a percentage point or two. Even that I am skeptical of, China does face a considerable corruption problem, but it shows no signs of collapsing under it's own weight in the Soviet fashion.

3 - They have indeed incited the hostility of our govt. John Snow recently went to Beijing to discuss these issues, but what is the stick that we threaten them with? Tariffs on their goods that will result in an increase in price of all the goods we buy from them? Wal-mart, Home Depot, and Best Buy certainly would be big losers if that happened. Interest rates would also rise here at home, leading to less economic growth. Do we stop the thousands of US companies that are lined up and salivating to invest in China?

4 - I'm sure they won't stay dependant long. The Chinese recently announced plans to move to a free-floating yuan in the future. My U.S.News and World Report says "probably in time for the 2008 Olympics".

5 - I dealt with this above.

It is in China's best interest to slowly remove the artificial exchange rate and embrace a floating currency. Once China does this, they will become a stronger member of the world community. The Chinese will benefit and the Chinese economy will become improve.

I think that China agrees with you on this point. Otherwise they would not be moving slowly in that direction. However they no doubt also see a benefit to their current actions. Our economists are having a field day talking about the Chinese Tiger and people are certainly paying attention to the power that they wield.

China on their own

[jbischof]

If China enfonces their own standards then China might be slow in adopting new and faster standards that the rest of the world develops (regardless of who creates them).

Had China done this 5 years ago, they probably would have some mandated form of the PCI bus. They wouldn't like it much when the faster and better PCI-Express (which is due out shortly) comes and wipes out AGP and PCI for the rest of the world but they are stuck on their own standard.

True, Intel and Microsoft want their chunk of China BUT one of the most important things in the current technological landscape is the creation of common standards. Look at the mess America is in with cell phones. I should be able to easily send text messages, pictures, email and web content to anyone else with a cell phone, but instead we have a bunch of different providers all using different standards.

Before someone came along and standardized TV broadcast signals, there were multiple different ones and some TV's wouldn't work on some signals.

If they want *communication* standards on PC's, then it is probably in their best interest to do what the rest of the world is doing. Unless, that is, they want to remain isolated from the rest of the world. That way they won't get burned when the next new ground breaking release of Linux, Windows, or whatever comes out.

Re:China on their own

[radja]

>Before someone came along and standardized TV broadcast signals, there were multiple different ones and some TV's wouldn't work on some signals.

when did that happen? there's still PAL, NTSC, SECAM.. not all TVs (expecially older ones) support all standards..

Re:China on their own

[jbischof]

True, those French have to have their own version of everything.

The example might not be accurate in my trying to express how common standards are important for computer technology.

Re:China on their own

[jbischof]

When TV was still young there were several different standards within the US, as they tried to standardize those while improving picture quality PAL, NTSC, and SECAM emerged. All TV's in america should support all the common versions of NTSC (mostly NTSC-M). Now TV standards are generally standardized in each country, but differ from country to country.

Biggest misread article on ./

[Anonymous Coward]

Instead of blindly critizing his comments, please read the article.

Barret said he's not interest in developing two or more sets of incompatable standards because history has shown such an endevour is doomed to failure. The average CPU sold today has more circuitry pathways on it then paved roads on this planet.

China's motivation is benefiting from locally developed IP. China has always been (as far as I know) a bit inverted (but consistent in behaviour) country. Temptations must be high considering the rather radical changes that have happened over a few short decades. IMO part of that process has been an increase in the quality of life (saturation) in a country who has the world's largest population.

From what I understood, a like minded agreement in china to avoid hardware/software lock down (tech/policy/other) was already achieved. From what I understood there was already an agreement in place in which Intel was in the forefront of coordination and development of microprocessors in China (but that may have been good PR in allowing me to fill in the details).

Developing standard can be an expensive proposition for one company, especially when 100's of millions have gone into it's creation, only to have the industry shift to a better/cheaper compromise in the end. The shared common good has been the best model in technology standards in the past as shown in the recent IBM/M$ anouncement.

I like what a partnership can do to development within 500,000 miles of where I sit. I like the idea that another iron curtain isn't waiting for me when I wake up tomorrow morning.

Re:Who's got less of a clue? Submitter or FT?

[rimbaldi]

In my defence, my post left that open to interpretation. In case you didn't realize, the editors can change what you write at will. They put the linux slant in.

Cheaper non-x86 CPU? Which one?

[axxackall]

then it would become practical for Linux users to question whey they should run on an expensive Intel chip instead of a cheaper non-x86 CPU from another vendor.

Just curious, what would be the name of that cheaper non-x86 CPU? As for now I see all non-x86 personal computers and workstations are more expensive than same performance x86 ones. Or did I miss some one?

Re:Cheaper non-x86 CPU? Which one?

[cduffy]

That's if you're buying for high performance rather than, say, battery life or heat output.

In embedded space, MIPS and SH *smoke* Intel on those counts. It'd be rather a bad thing if they moved heavily into other markets as well, no?

Re:Cheaper non-x86 CPU? Which one?

[axxackall]

I though the original subject was about personal computers and workstations. No?

Re:Cheaper non-x86 CPU? Which one?

[cduffy]

The *original* subject which spawned this thread was Intel being scared.

That said, part of my point was potential for bleedover. If low-end workstations become, as a rule, Linux based (and thus have less software requirements tying them to a given architecture), it's all the easier for them to go over to MIPS -- at which point the manufacturers can do customer-friendly things like... say... leave out the fans, and have an almost silent-running system (particularly in the case of diskless systems, where the "almost" can be discarded, or some of Seagate's hard drives designed with low noise levels in mind).

Re:Cheaper non-x86 CPU? Which one?

[Minna Kirai]

Just curious, what would be the name of that cheaper non-x86 CPU?

The poster was writing in the future tense. You can tell from the use of "become", as opposed to "be". It was speculation, and doesn't need any relation to existing products to be meaningful.

However, from time to time IBM has offered a new PowerPC chip for less than Intel's top of the line CPU. If it's comprable is a matter of argument (although IBM claims it's better).

Re:Cheaper non-x86 CPU? Which one?

[axxackall]

Perhaps PPC chips sometimes are cheaper than top-x86 ones. But the whole desktop system based on PPC was never cheaper. I guess that counts at least RS6Ks and Macs. I am not sure about Amigas though.

Generally, it's hard to build the desktop solution cheaper than x86 compatible one, as too many vendors of hardware x86-compatible components are compteting to each other. Less competition - higher prices, usually.

Re:Cheaper non-x86 CPU? Which one?

[axxackall]

Perhaps MIPS chips sometimes are cheaper than some x86 ones. But I doubt that the whole desktop system based on MIPS would be cheaper than performance-equal x86 ones.

Generally, it's hard to build the desktop solution cheaper than x86 compatible one, as too many vendors of hardware x86-compatible components are compteting to each other. Less competition - higher prices, usually.

Re:Cheaper non-x86 CPU? Which one?

[cduffy]

But I doubt that the whole desktop system based on MIPS would be cheaper than performance-equal x86 ones.

Okay, I thought I tried to make this point earlier... but maybe not.

For a low-end workstation, who the hell cares about "performance-equal" any more?

Low-end workstations all perform more than well enough to browse the web, read email, run a word processor or run remote apps off a server. Additional performance no longer really buys additional relevant functionality in the low-end workstation market... which is why things like silent running become more important than speed.

I'll grant that a MIPS-based line of low-end workstations would need a substantial production quantity to hit the right price point -- but *given* that (and presuming one is building ones' own components), the additional functionality (ie. very low power consumption/heat usage) is potentially enough to make them competitive even if they aren't performance-equal.

That warning makes no sense.

[Jammet]

Many solutions compete over how perfectly they blend into foreign environments, save and load most common commercial file formats.

The masses that use Linux aren't locked out of MS file formats anymore since years, and Microsoft file format users aren't tied to their lock-in files as much anymore either.

The open sourced alternative ways of loading and saving foreign format files bypass problems of the past with elegancy that is unmatched in the commercial world (where is dead project won't rise from the ashes without money involved).

The "scratch your own itch" way works out neatly. Whoever feels the desire to do so canl pick whatever _they_ think is best for them. Craig's warning is unnecessary and feels a little out of place.

My Summary of Chinese History

[popo]

For anyone who doesn't understand China, here's the entire history of the country going back at least 500 years.

1) China's government relaxes its authoritarian control in an effort to spur economic growth.
2) Economic growth requires political freedom and the government tacitly allows limited freedoms to develop.
3) Limited freedoms begin to give way to larger cultural changes, and an influx of Western ideologies and influences.
4) Western ideologies and influences contrast and clash with the authoritarian rule of the government.
5) China's government cracks down on cultural "dissidents", blood is spilled, and the government regains absolute control.
6) The crackdown on freedoms results in decreased trade. China's economy suffers. Simultaneously there is a shuffling of the political deck and new political hard-liners emerge.
7) Hard-liners promise economic reform in order to maintain power.
8) Repeat from Step #1 ad infinitum.

Right now we're between Steps #3 and #4

Step #5 will occur almost immediately following the close of the Olympic Games in 2008.

Yeah... this time it'll be different though....

Re:My Summary of Chinese History

[Anonymous Coward]

Just left alone, I wonder where they'd go.

If the country does float it's currency inflation (perhaps similar to what happen with russian currency in the 80's & 90's, many more pressures did apply though). Inflation can be offset by lowering cost of basic of necessities and keeping quality of life at a *relative* medium. I do view *some* imposed global trade as a parasitic practice (without return) which devalues my local economy and unfairly imposes undue risk to rural communities (where the quality of life tends to be much, much higher).

And I am all for using regulations on companies whose business model includes a great deal of lobbying. I am also all for penaties that threaten the livelyhood of it's business model for certain companies/industry who are indifferent to the US constitition, it's citizens (yes even one) or the rightful soverienty of countries.

Re:My Summary of Chinese History

[Anonymous Coward]

Dumbass! Military weakness of the Chinese during the last 300 hundred years did not reflect the Chinese economic condition. During the early half of the Qing monarchy ruling, which took power from around 1600, China's economy in terms of size and total goods produced was still more than that of entire Europe combined.

Extremely corrupted government with a backward ethnic minority monarchy, bend on crushing any Han (main ethnicity of Chinese population) resistance and fighting spirits resulted in Chinese military defeats and humiliations. In fact, the dynasty that was overthrown before Qing, Ming, was already deploying primitive guns and cannons in its military, but its extreme corruption and oppression of the people resulted in it been overthrown. The Manchus, a relatively backward tribal society in northern China, took the opportunity to invade and control entire China when a key general in charge of defending a crucial point at Great Wall defected, and the peasant army that had overthrown the Ming dynasty was ill prepared to meet the fresh invasion. The latter half of Qing's ruling with deteriorating economy and stability resulted in even more defeats.

And what influx of Western ideology and influence are you talking about? Forced concession of lands? Colonial ruling? Forced opium trade? I hardly think that forcing another nation to accept hard drugs is a good influence. Shut up, offspring of pirates and drug dealers!

Re:My Summary of Chinese History

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't even know where to begin in correcting your fabricated Chinese history, "going back at least 500 years", are you a complusive liar or just an idiot?

FUD: USA scared

[axxackall]

I for one encourage Asia to forget about any fears of FUD from Intel. When it will be adopted by at least three countries: China, South Korea and Japan - it will be a standard already.

But seems like EU goes same way as Asia (in a broad sense: from Microsoft to Linux/OSS). And so do Latin America and Australia. So, who's left sticking to "old standards" (read: to really-proprietary wintel)?

Let's bung it through the universal translater....

[mormop]

"Although such a strategy might protect local companies and markets in the short term, it would make it more difficult for Asian companies to participate in world markets, he said"

We're helping to bring in Palladium and we won't tell you how it works unless you play the game our way.

That means if you want to compete with the rest of the world you have to do your local standard here, and then work on an all-new set of development" to meet standards used in other markets

How dare you set up local standards that aren't OUR local standards particularly if your local standards happen to be open and available to all because they're based on Open Source.

You have to ask yourself this: is there an advantage to having a proprietary standard in your country

Unlike our free, open and totally honest and democratic standard as presented by Microsoft

rival standards co-exist, although he predicted that a single technology would eventually win out

If Microsoft can have a monopoly I see no reason why we at Intel can't have one of our own.

Mr Barrett's comments come after a visit to several Asian countries and the opening of an Intel research and development centre in Taiwan. By 2010, Intel said, China would be the single largest market for its PC and communications chips.

There's a billion of you and 250,000 of us and unless we can screw your embryonic chip and Linux based software market we expect to be saying "but I can't send you a .doc file 'cos I only have MS Office" by 2010.

totally hypocritical

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, so he's bitching about how other countries want to subvert the grip MS and Intel has on technology. That argument is slow flawed, it's funny. The US government has done exactly that over the last 20 years. Why is it any different. What a cry baby.

One OS ought to be enough for anybody

[fluor2]

" One OS ought to be enough for anybody "
- Craig Barrett, Intel, 2003

I can see the concerns, but....

[greymond]

I don't think it would matter to much.

I can see why if ALL of china went Linux with Linux boxes and then out comes some new windows only gadget, or even in a more realistic view - out comes a new high-end printer that will not run under Linux Period (Xerox Fiery setup with a DC40?) then their kind of screwed.

I still think that rather than have a "standard" (I hate that word) it's better to just use 1) what your comfortable with 2) what works with your shit and 3) what can continue to work with your new addons.

Re:Who's got less of a clue? Submitter or FT?

[glrotate]

full apologies

We know best stick with intel

[sennai]

all i can say is stfu intel and stay out of the way of linux users.

Cartoon posted on official police web in Shanghai

[TheThirdChinese]

http://gaj.sh.gov.cn/shpolice/xinzhao/ff365/item/2 003_09/8561.shtml also: http://www.police.sh.cn/shpolice/xinzhao/ff365/ite m/2003_09/8561.shtml a copy is saved here: http://image.pbase.com/u33/paizhibu/large/21592680 .shga.jpg translations: "Title: Dont be sympathetic to those homeless people 1.woman: How poor these non_Shanghainese are! 2.man: Fang(name), Dont be sympathetic to Them. 3.man: They sleep on the street and stain the civilized image of Shanghai subscription: In bus/train stations, under highway bridges, on some back streets, and in some suburban area there live homeless families immegrated to Shanghai. They are dirty, wearing rags, depending on begging and trash, and lazy. They deeply damage the civilized image of the metropolitan, and bring criminal problems to Shanghai. Here we remind you citizens, don't be sympathetic to them, and don't give them anything." How do you guys think of this? Could similar cartoon be posted on the US government websites?

too bad ...

[WiPEOUT]

It's too bad this Slashdot story and comments won't be seen by those who would benefit the most from it. While I cannot be certain, I would surmise that the Great Firewall of China would block access to Slashdot. It's a shame, as it is commentary like the +5s above which would be of more use to policy-makers than Barrett's pearls of wisdom.

Re:too bad ...

[TheThirdChinese]

You will be surprized if you know that they also blocked google.com and sourceforge.net (probably because of freenet project)

Intel Loves Microsoft? Hardly

[Glasswire]

Despite a long-standing and profitable relationship which constrains public friction, Intel and Microsoft have often had battles of varing seriousness on a bunch of topics...

Intel has been / is mad at Microsoft about:
- Constant attempts over the years to generalize their OSes to other processor archectures (NT on Alpha/MIPs, Pocket PC on all sorts of non-Intel (non X-scale) cpus and, of course, x86-64 and the eventual cpu independent version of .Net)
- Blocking Intel on hardware standards and initiatives
- Microsoft dragging it's feet about supporting new hardware features in the OS (eg USB on NT (never really), Hyperthreading (2 years) and Itanium Architecture (Linux had IA64 up and running 3 years before Ms)
-Microsoft's attempt to position Intel cpus as just another processor they support.

Microsoft has been / is mad at Intel about:
- Intel's general support of Linux in general including founding and funding the Open Source Development Lab (where Linus and Andrew are employed now)
- Intel's support of HP in running HP-UX on Itanium and Intel's historic support for Novell Netware, Solaris, Unixware and other Unices
-Support for OS-independent management and other hardware APIs that let other OSes get parity or better with Windows
-Occasionally making end-users aware of the prickly truth that the cost advantage of "Wintel" vs big RISC UNIX is all Intel hardware economics which makes the solution cheaper in spite of the greater cost of the Ms software
-Intel's attempt to position Windows as just another OS they support.

Yeah, but that was OK when...

[mabhatter654]

Yeah, they abuse their own people but that was OK when the people were reproducing American IP for American Capitalists.

OOPS! China has decided to use all that cheap labor the American compainies set up to build their OWN tech sector and the Americans are crying foul...But hey, our stuff all says "Made in China" on it anyway...How are we to tell the difference...and why should we?

whereiswaldo is right

[Anonymous Coward]

I second this motion.
It seems sad and pathetic but to envision a future where ignorant, computer-illiterate American consumers could have their OS dictated to them by China......but at least it would be linux.
more power to Red Flag!

Let me get this straight...

[EzInKy]

"That means if you want to compete with the rest of the world you have to do your local standard here, and then work on an all-new set of development" to meet standards used in other markets, Mr Barrett said.

Asia is moving towards Linux and Open Source software solutions. So is Europe. Now who is it again that will be unable to compete because they are stubbornly using local standards?

Even wronger...

[HiggsBison]

It is an old Klingon saying: Only Nixon could go to China.

Forking makes plenty of sense

[GCP]

The Chinese want to make sure that Westerners pay for Chinese products while the Chinese don't have to pay for Western products.

So, now they'll go from stealing Western software to stealing their own. (The rule is that they have to use Chinese-made software, not that they have to use open source software.) Oh, well.

But there's another side of it that is likely to require forking: security, as in State Security. I don't think the Chinese have any objection to back doors in software. They just want them to be their OWN back doors. "Chinese-made" software, whether nominally "open source" or not, is likely to be what The Party wants it to be. And even if it is in some sense open source, if you think open source software can't be booby trapped, you're pretty naive.

This is aimed squarely at

[bstadil]

their on foot.

Nobody that has any insight into China will buy this story.

What are the alledged CEO's of western companies going to do? Tell then to change their evil ways or they wont play, Hardly

Linux and OpenSource - the "regional standard"

[konmaskisin]

I think rather than being evil and trying t

Hey Intel - how about those synthetic diamonds!! Think any competitors will come up with diamond CPUs that run 10 times faster and half the price of than your silicon chips?? Nah ... won't happen.

Someone is full of crap and going to get some historically significant "disrupting".

(Flushing sound)

Asia is gonna go medieval on your share value baby.

Insightful?

[commodoresloat]

There are so many problems here I don't know what to begin responding to. Blaming Clinton for 911 is as silly as blaming Bush. But it is fair to say that the Clinton Administration had a much more robust antiterrorism policy and took the OBL threat in particular much more seriously than the early Bush Admin; the best example of this is FBI Deputy Director John O'Neill being told by the Bush Admin to back off investigation of al Qaeda while Bush negotiated with the Taliban. O'Neill wound up resigning from his post in August 2001 and ironically got a desk job in the World Trade Center, where he died. Meanwhile, John Ashcroft was cutting FBI antiterrorism funding by $58 million. Even after 911, investigation shows that the FBI was deliberately dragging its feet about translating important documents in order to appear overworked (so they could qualify for more funding).

You cite Clinton's "failure to deal with Iraq" and then you admit that Iraq had nothing to do with al Qaeda, 9-11, or terrorism. Why would his dealing with Iraq in 1998 have stopped 9-11? I would argue (and the evidence is quite clearly on my side here) that Bush's handling of Iraq has dramatically increased terrorism; there were no Iraqi suicide bombers prior to April 2003. I would also argue that the Bush Admin was well aware of this.

Try re-reading the news for the first 8 months of Bush's presidency. There was no significant talk of Iraq at all. Nothing. Even after 9/11 the target was Afghanistan, not Iraq.

Wrong. The Bush Admin was gunning for Iraq from 9/11 on, and it is clear from statements by Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and even Bush. I don't have time to do your homework for you, but a quick look at the Defense Department website turns up this example. And whether or not you think Bush wanted to go after Iraq from the beginning, it was obvious by mid- to late-2002 that attacking Iraq was on America's agenda whether we found a good reason to do so or not. And despite all the claims we haven't even found a single chemical weapon there, not to mention the dreaded biological and nuclear weapons Bush scared America into believing existed.

If Bush knew there was no threat in Iraq and sent us to war anyway, he should be impeached. But so far there is no evidence of that.

Actually, there's quite a bit of evidence that his administration lied, starting with his claims of an IAEA report on Saddam's nuclear weapons that didn't exist, the claim that there was evidence Iraq was involved in al Qaeda (which he has since backed off of), and the Nigerian yellow cake uranium documents that were such obvious forgeries they could only have been included in the Bush Administration's "evidence" for propaganda purposes. If the Administration didn't know these things were lies, then they are beyond incompetent. I won't even get into the half-truths his administration has been snowing us with; the above are the demonstrable lies.

Now, that said, I really don't think impeachment hearings are the best thing for this nation, and I probably wouldn't support them. But there's surely more than enough evidence to justify them then there was during the Clinton impeachment fiasco. Lying about an affair in front of your wife is a very different thing than lying about national security issues to the American people while supporting policies that you are well aware make us less secure as a nation.

But in a worst-case scenario we have one less ruthless dictator in the middle east.

And you have a massive increase in chaos, death, and terrorism in the middle east. And some ten attacks on American soldiers per day. And a billion-dollar per week price tag, not to mention the $87 billion more Bush asked for.

Re:Insightful?

[letxa2000]

But it is fair to say that the Clinton Administration had a much more robust antiterrorism policy and took the OBL threat in particular much more seriously than the early Bush Admin

If so, why did the Clinton administration not seize the opportunity to have Sudan hand over Bin Laden when they had the chance on numerous occasions?

Even after 911, investigation shows that the FBI was deliberately dragging its feet about translating important documents in order to appear overworked

This is a bueracratic problem within the FBI that is not Clinton's or Bush's fault, and would have happened under either.

You cite Clinton's "failure to deal with Iraq" and then you admit that Iraq had nothing to do with al Qaeda, 9-11, or terrorism. Why would his dealing with Iraq in 1998 have stopped 9-11?

Uhm, I never said that Clinton dealing with Iraq would have stopped 9/11. The issue of Bush and Iraq was raised by a previous post and I simply commented that the whole thing wouldn't have even been an issue for the Bush administration if the Clinton administration had done its job regarding Iraq back in 1998. A few cruise missile strikes and Clinton thought his job was done. Mostly, I think he was afraid of the hit he'd take in the polls if American lives were lost in combat.

I would argue (and the evidence is quite clearly on my side here) that Bush's handling of Iraq has dramatically increased terrorism; there were no Iraqi suicide bombers prior to April 2003.

Hah hah, terrorism like we're seeing now, no. But there were state-sponsored chemical attacks on entire towns and genocide committed against Iraqi citizens near Basra after 1991 that filled the mass graves that are now being excavated. That's not terrorism? That's brazen state-sponsored terrorism against its own people which I personally think is worse than Iraqis taking shots at what they may consider an invading army.

I'm quite confident that fewer people are dying on a daily basis in Iraq now, although I will admit that the deaths are more visible than they were when they were hidden by a dictator.

And whether or not you think Bush wanted to go after Iraq from the beginning, it was obvious by mid- to late-2002 that attacking Iraq was on America's agenda...

I will agree that by mid- to late-2002 it was obvious we were going to get Iraq. That wasn't the case before 9/11, however. And when 9/11 happened the primary issue was Afghanistan.

Personally, I think 9/11 happened and Bush said, "Ok, Afghanistan is history, obviously. Who else is on the board that is either a problem now or could give us grief in the next decade?" They told him and that's where the Axis of Evil nations came from. And I think he said, "Ok, well, the gloves are off. Screw it. We're going to deal with this before 9/11 happens again." That approach might not be popular, but I'm certainly not in a position to say it's wrong.

And you have a massive increase in chaos, death, and terrorism in the middle east. And some ten attacks on American soldiers per day.

An increase in chaos in Iraq? Probably. Death? Probably not. I'm quite confident that Saddam's government killed more people daily than are currently dying in Iraq. The known chemical attacks in the 1980's and the mass graves near Basra are evidence of this. Terrorism in the middle east? To say that Iraq has caused an increase is to ignore that it comes in waves anyway, and is quite unpredictable. It happens for no apparent reason. The current wave has come after Iraq which makes Iraq a convenient explanation, but it's quite impossible to say that the Iraq invasion caused it.

And a billion-dollar per week price tag, not to mention the $87 billion more Bush asked for.

Yeah, $87 billion more to clean up a country that has been terrorize by a dictator is a waste of money, but spending tens of millions of dollars to topple an aspirin factory makes good financial sense.

Re:Insightful?

[commodoresloat]

If so, why did the Clinton administration not seize the opportunity to have Sudan hand over Bin Laden when they had the chance on numerous occasions?

I said "more robust," not perfect. We agree that neither Clinton nor Bush can be blamed for 9/11. The blame there lies with bin Laden. All I was saying is that Clinton's Admin took the OBL threat more seriously than Bush's. This really isn't a comment on either of the men, Bush or Clinton, so much as their administrations, but that's neither here nor there.

Uhm, I never said that Clinton dealing with Iraq would have stopped 9/11. The issue of Bush and Iraq was raised by a previous post and I simply commented that the whole thing wouldn't have even been an issue for the Bush administration if the Clinton administration had done its job regarding Iraq back in 1998.

Uhm, then I'm not sure what you're saying. What "whole thing" would not have been an issue for Bush? Terrorism? 9/11? When Iraq was not clearly involved in either?

But there were state-sponsored chemical attacks on entire towns and genocide committed against Iraqi citizens near Basra after 1991 that filled the mass graves that are now being excavated. That's not terrorism? That's brazen state-sponsored terrorism against its own people which I personally think is worse than Iraqis taking shots at what they may consider an invading army.

That kind of terrorism (if you want to call it that) is not suicide bombers attacking US forces, and as bad as it is, it is not a threat to US national security. I agree the Iraqi government was absolutely despicable toward it's own people, and Saddam and his henchmen were the lowest kind of murderous thugs. I have vocally opposed Saddam Hussein's regime, by the way, for a long time -- much longer than (for example) Donald Rumsfeld, who shook hands with Saddam Hussein shortly after his government gassed a large number of his own citizens at Halabja. I opposed vehemently the Reagan Administration's support of Saddam's murderous regime. I am also glad to see Saddam removed from power. But I do not equate his regime with a threat to US national security and I wonder whether removing him and making ourselves responsible for rebuilding Iraq is in our national interest at all. You're right, the Iraqis see us as an invading army. That will get worse as the occupation continues, and we can expect to lose more Americans (and Iraqis) and spend more money. Was it worth it? I think it's probably too early to tell; we don't know whether the future will bring democracy, another autocrat like Saddam, or a theocracy that is potentially more murderous and more dangerous than Saddam's dictatorship. But if Saddam's crimes justified a US invasion, why do we not invade other brutal dictatorships that are just as bad and in some cases are greater threats to the US -- e.g. North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Uzbekistan?

I will agree that by mid- to late-2002 it was obvious we were going to get Iraq. That wasn't the case before 9/11, however. And when 9/11 happened the primary issue was Afghanistan.

I pointed to a Wolfowitz document from October 2001 naming Iraq; most accounts of the meetings in the Admin after 9/11 indicate that the neoconservatives advising Bush felt that 9/11 presented the perfect opportunity to invade Iraq.

Personally, I think 9/11 happened and Bush said, "Ok, Afghanistan is history, obviously. Who else is on the board that is either a problem now or could give us grief in the next decade?" They told him and that's where the Axis of Evil nations came from. And I think he said, "Ok, well, the gloves are off. Screw it. We're going to deal with this before 9/11 happens again." That approach might not be popular, but I'm certainly not in a position to say it's wrong.

You may not be but you would be if you read the news. It's pretty obvious that it has been the wrong approach if our goal is to increase US national security and decrease the kind of Islamic terrorism we sa

Re:Insightful?

[An. (Coward)]

If so, why did the Clinton administration not seize the opportunity to have Sudan hand over Bin Laden when they had the chance on numerous occasions?

I regret that this is buried so far down in the thread, but have you ever considered that maybe, just maybe, the story about Clinton declining this deal might be spurious?

Al Franken's latest book (I realize he's just as partisan as anyone else, but he's got a bit more regard for the truth than the likes of Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter) has the following to say:

[The] entire case comes from a guy named Mansoor Ijaz, a Pakistani-American who claims to have transmitted the offer as a middleman between the U.S. and Sudan. I got the story on Ijaz from former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger and from Daniel Benjamin, past director of counterterrrism on the National Security Council and now senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Berger only had to meet once with Ijaz to determine that he was an unreliable freelancer, pursuing his own financial interests. Ijaz was an investment banker with a huge stake in Sudanese oil.

Ijaz had urged Berger to lift sanctions against Sudan. Why the sanctions? Because Sudan was and remains a notorious sponsor of terrorism, harboring Hamas, Hezbolla, and al Qaeda. Also, the Sudanese regime is the leading state sponsor of slavery and is considered by many to be genocidal. And totally untrustworthy. Ijaz, however, was arguing their case. As Benjamin said of Ijaz, Either he allowed himself to be manipulated, or he's in bed with a bunch of genocidal terrorists.

Ijaz said that Sudan was ready to hand over bin Laden. The U.S. does not conduct diplomacy through self-appointed private individuals. When the U.S. talked to Sudan, there was no such offer. The U.S. pursued every lead and tried to negotiate. Nothing.

The story does have a happy ending. Ijaz now has a job as foreign affairs analyst for the Fox News Channel.

Re:Insightful?

[letxa2000]

Me: I simply commented that the whole thing wouldn't have even been an issue for the Bush administration if the Clinton administration had done its job regarding Iraq back in 1998.
You: Uhm, then I'm not sure what you're saying. What "whole thing" would not have been an issue for Bush? Terrorism? 9/11? When Iraq was not clearly involved in either?

I'm saying the "whole Iraq thing." The issue of Iraq wouldn't be an issue today if Clinton had dealt with it appropriately in 1998 when the U.N. actually would have supported taking action. Instead, Clinton just sent in his old friends, the cruise missiles, and ignored the problem and left it festering.

I'm not saying Iraq had anything to do with terrorism or 9/11. But just because they don't have ties with terrorism doesn't mean they are automatically our friends or incapable of other types of threats.

why do we not invade other brutal dictatorships that are just as bad and in some cases are greater threats to the US -- e.g. North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Uzbekistan?

I agree that we should give North Korea a month to comply or they'll follow Iraqs fate (without the promise of reconstruction). I'm unaware of Saudi plans to develop WMDs or do anything to threaten us that would suggest an invasion is necessary, but I would agree that we should break off relations with them. I also agree that Pakistan should be dealt with as a terrorist--we should've have plowed through them to get to Afghanistan rather than asking for permission. As for Uzbekistan, I'm unaware of what's going on there--but I don't think they represent a global or regional threat so that'd be an internal problem for them.

I don't think we should go around liberating people from every dictator on the planet. But dictators that represent a threat to our national security or put strategic regions at risk, yes.

Me: That approach might not be popular, but I'm certainly not in a position to say it's wrong.
You: You may not be but you would be if you read the news.

My dear sir, can we please have a discussion without being condescending? I read the news daily. You may interpret it differently than I do but let's not get into that kind of mud-slinging.

It's pretty obvious that it has been the wrong approach if our goal is to increase US national security and decrease the kind of Islamic terrorism we saw on 9/11.

How has it decreased U.S. national security? And in the long-run having a non-dictator in Iraq can only increase U.S. security. I might agree that our actions may put us at short-term risk for terrorism--but even that's questionable since 9/11 already showed that we were already at risk of terrorism.

As for decreasing Islamic terrorism are you advocating that we should base our foreign policy decisions based on fear of terrorism? If so, I disagree 100%. We need to do what is right and what is best for this country even if it isn't popular.

The mass graves indicate what happened when the last US invasion went wrong; it was predicted at the time (I actually remember 1991) and most people agree it was an obvious consequence of invading the country and then leaving it completely.

So do I understand that you would have approved of invading Iraq back in 1991 but not now?

The best you can say about the current policy is that we're trying to finish the job.

I don't think that's necessarily bad. At least Hillary Clinton won't have to deal with the mess in 2008.

Terrorism may have complex causes, but to say it happens for "no apparent reason" is just ignorant.

Let me try to restate that. It's not that the terrorists don't have their reason. But the waves of violence in Israel, for example, often just start up when everything appears to be going good. The peace plan in Israel was doing surprisingly well a few months ago until terrorists decided to blow up a bus. I'm not saying that terrorists don't have thei

Re:Insightful?

[commodoresloat]

I don't have time or inclination to debate this point by point; suffice to say you've left no reason to actually have attacked Iraq. You cite WMD yet as I've said before we haven't even found chemical weapons (hardly a WMD despite the propaganda) much less the bioweapons or the nukes Bush scared us with. The evidence points to the fact that his administration lied about those things. So I don't see "the whole Iraq" thing as the problem you do -- our intelligence agencies knew their WMD were nonexistent from the beginning and there was no threat to US national security. Meanwhile, we do nothing about real WMD threats like Pakistan and North Korea. Then you say the increase in terrorism after Iraq is short term and arguable. I hope you're right about it being short term; that seems wildly optimistic to me... but it's not arguable; we've been losing people in Iraq every day, and we would not be losing those people if they weren't in Iraq. I know people who are stuck out in that desert and as an American citizen I want to believe that they're risking their lives for something meaninful in terms of US national security. Unfortunately most of them don't even believe it any more. You cite long term costs of not invading Iraq as if they're obvious. I think there was a stronger case for war in 1990 when Iraq invaded Kuwait and we had international support. I'm not a pacifist. But since then he hasn't threatened any of his neighbors, he did not make WMD, the worst he did was lie and be a pain in the ass to the UN and inspectors. Even then the inspectors stated clearly and unambiguously that they did not need Saddam's cooperation in order to fulfill their mission of enforcing the resolutions. Still, we pushed on with war. The WWII analogy is way offbase.

I'd love to believe along with you that this war will make Iraq a peaceful democracy, but I just don't see any evidence to support that. And I'd love to believe along with Bush that it is possible to pay for this war and cut taxes at the same time. We're gonna spend money to develop the health care and education facilities in Iraq that the Bush Admin refuses to develop in America. That's just sad, and as someone who considers myself fiercely patriotic, it sickens me.

Re:Insightful?

[japhmi]

I'm quite confident that fewer people are dying on a daily basis in Iraq now, although I will admit that the deaths are more visible than they were when they were hidden by a dictator.

But now there are AMERICANS who are dying, not some Iraqis.

(note: sarcasm involved here)

Re:Insightful?

[letxa2000]

... you've left no reason to actually have attacked Iraq. You cite WMD

Iraq was a threat to his own people, his neighbors, the region and by extension the U.S. with or without WMDs. He was in violation of numerous U.N. resolutions, including the cease-fire Sadadm agreed to to end hostilities back in 1991. Simply being in violation of that cease-fire was more than sufficient justification to take action.

Yet as I've said before we haven't even found chemical weapons (hardly a WMD despite the propaganda) much less the bioweapons or the nukes Bush scared us with.

So far, no. That said, the U.N. had been making resolutions and demands for over a decade that Saddam had been ignoring or uncooperative with. Clinton had the opportunity to wrap it up in 1998 when world opinion would have favored a quick resolution, but he didn't act. The fact that a few years have passed doesn't mean the U.N. resolutions had gone away. The fact that Saddam was uncooperative with U.N. weapons inspectors was worrisome regardless of what was known. You'd think he'd want to prove he was clean so sanctions would be lifted and Iraq could get on with normal life.

So I don't see "the whole Iraq" thing as the problem you do -- our intelligence agencies knew their WMD were nonexistent from the beginning and there was no threat to US national security.

Wow, you must have access to information that no-one else has access to. If Congress had that information they would have not given Bush permission to take "all necessary action" in regards to Iraq. And they'd probably be looking to impeach now. So you must have some pretty interesting sources of information to make such a claim. Call your closest Democratic presidential candidate, I'm sure they'd love to have the information you apparently have access to.

Meanwhile, we do nothing about real WMD threats like Pakistan and North Korea.

And I agree we should deal with both of those countries.

but it's not arguable; we've been losing people in Iraq every day, and we would not be losing those people if they weren't in Iraq

Well that's pretty obvious. War has a tendency to be deadly. And most of our troops have been lost in what I'd call guerilla warfare more than terrorism. Terrorism strikes fear (terror) in the hearts of everyday citizens. It bothers me that we are losing soliders in Iraq, but it doesn't strike fear in my heart that I or anyone in my country is at risk. Soliders, yes, but they're involved in war. So it's not terrorism, it's guerilla warfare.

You cite long term costs of not invading Iraq as if they're obvious. I think there was a stronger case for war in 1990 when Iraq invaded Kuwait and we had international support.

I agree. We should have finished the job. Perhaps Bush Sr. didn't want to be seen as occupying the country. Perhaps, as has been said, he made a deal with Saddam to let him stay as long as he didn't use chemical weapons on advancing coalition troops. I really don't know. I also think it could've been finished by Clinton in 1998 when there was also world support for it, but Clinton was driven by the polls so he just lobbed some cruise missiles.

Regardless, the right thing isn't always popular domestically or internationally. Iraq was under crippling international sanctions that have now been lifted. Given the option of continuing to strangle a country because of its dictator or just taking the dictator out and letting the country return to normalcy, I think the latter is the better option for everyone.

the worst he did was lie and be a pain in the ass to the UN and inspectors.

So how is the U.N. supposed to know if any particular dictator is just being a pain in the ass or really has something to hide? Saddam *HAD* WMDs, that's common knowledge and accepted. The question is whether or not he got rid of them. Perhaps he did. He should have given the U.N. what they needed in terms of proof rather t

Re:Insightful?

[commodoresloat]

Iraq was a threat to his own people, his neighbors, the region and by extension the U.S. with or without WMDs. He was in violation of numerous U.N. resolutions, including the cease-fire Sadadm agreed to to end hostilities back in 1991. Simply being in violation of that cease-fire was more than sufficient justification to take action.

Then should we attack Israel and every other country that breaks a UN resolution? Iraq has been by no stretch of the imagination any threat to the US or even to its neighbors since 1991. They could barely contain the Kurds. I don't pretend to whitewash Saddam's murderous regime, but we pick and choose which thugs to go after. And Saddam was no threat to us. If we were enforcing the UN resolutions why the hell wasn't the UN on board? Because the UN inspectors made it clear that they didnt need an invasion to do so. Look up "Hans Blix" on google if you want more information, but you should know this since you claim to read the news.

The fact that Saddam was uncooperative with U.N. weapons inspectors was worrisome regardless of what was known. You'd think he'd want to prove he was clean so sanctions would be lifted and Iraq could get on with normal life.

I can't account for Saddam's twisted thinking but as I said it is not our job to enforce UN resolutions, and the UN wasn't pressing for our assistance here.

Me: our intelligence agencies knew their WMD were nonexistent from the beginning and there was no threat to US national security.

You: Wow, you must have access to information that no-one else has access to.

Yeah, I do, really obscure sources like the New York Times. Even Fox news was reporting on this. I guess you missed it. The CIA (prior to the recent fuss about "yellow cake") was telling the Bushies they couldn't find an al Qaeda link and that they thought most of the evidence for WMD was weak. The Bush Administration wound up creating a separate intelligence agency in the Pentagon whose sole purpose seems to have been to produce a different intelligence estimate than the CIA. Here's an article about some of this from the Washington Post. I don't feel like doing more of your research for you; suffice to say that if you don't believe any of my claims you're free to look them up. Some links might be easy to find on the warblog I was keeping on the war for a while, if you care to look (though a lot of the links have probably expired). Also I would recommend The Agonist; he does a really good job of culling a lot of this information from mainstream news sources. I'm not in the habit of making stuff up or believing everything I read on the internet.

So it's not terrorism, it's guerilla warfare.

Talk about self serving definitions -- you define Saddam's attacks on his own people as terrorism but suicide bombers attacking the UN building and American soldiers as guerrilla warfare. I don't particularly care what you want to call it; my point is that our involvement in Iraq has increased the threat and power of Islamist fundamentalist organizations who wish to do harm to the US and who wish to institute theocratic goverments in the Middle East. Call it what you will, but I see that as a much greater threat to US national security than Saddam gassing his own people twenty years ago (as horrible as the latter admittedly is).

So how is the U.N. supposed to know if any particular dictator is just being a pain in the ass or really has something to hide? Saddam *HAD* WMDs, that's common knowledge and accepted.

If you define chemical weapons as WMD, fine, but those kind of WMD are hardly a threat to anyone (except someone who invades Iraq), and they have been an accepted part of conventional warfare since WWI. But the UN inspector Hans Blix made it clear that he was confident of the inspectors' ability to keep Iraq's WMD t

Re:Insightful?

[letxa2000]

Then should we attack Israel and every other country that breaks a UN resolution?

I wouldn't make a blanket statement such as that. International politics are too complicated to have a "one size fits all" policy.

... but we pick and choose which thugs to go after

I agree, we do. And while that might not be the best possible situation, it is the reality. Certain thugs are more of a threat to us, the world, and the world economy than others. A thug sitting on major oil reserves is going to be much more in the world spotlight than a thug growing bananas.

If we were enforcing the UN resolutions why the hell wasn't the UN on board?

Because the UN didn't have the stomach to stand behind the resolutions it had already passed. You can say what you want about Bush's decision to deal with Iraq now, but Iraq *WAS* in violation of the cease-fire that ended hostilities in 1991 and in violation of several U.N. resolutions since then. Any of those would have been sufficient reason to take Iraq to task. That the U.N. was unwilling to enforce its own resolutions just goes to show how little backbone they have--and I'm sure that will not be forgotten by future dictators that have to decide whether or not it's really necessary to pay attention to the U.N.

Look up "Hans Blix" on google if you want more information, but you should know this since you claim to read the news.

Most of his comments to that effect have been SINCE the Iraq war. I respected Hans Blix up until the Iraq war--he limited his comments to the job at hand. Since the Iraq war, however, it has made a habit of criticizing just about everything and it's clear that he was very anti-war. If he was, he should've made the statements he's been making lately back when it would've made a difference. No-one respects France so no-one cared what they said. But some no-bullshit words from Blix could've made a difference at that time. Now I see Blix as being as spineless as France because he apparently didn't speak his mind back in February nearly as much as he has lately.

I can't account for Saddam's twisted thinking but as I said it is not our job to enforce UN resolutions, and the UN wasn't pressing for our assistance here.

No, but it should have. The resolutions were there because the world community felt that the Iraq issue was serious enough to merit sanctions and a weapons inspection program. That's some pretty serious stuff. After 9/11 the U.S. woke up and realized some stuff had to be done, even if the rest of the world was content to drag its feet.

I also don't accept the belief that the U.N. has to request that we use our military for us to use it. Our military is to do OUR work. If that happens to coincide with the U.N., great. If not, well, the U.N. can go build its own military.

... you define Saddam's attacks on his own people as terrorism but suicide bombers attacking the UN building and American soldiers as guerrilla warfare.

Did I define Saddam's attack on his own people as terrorism? I don't think so but if I did, I misspoke. I believe I called it genocide and/or massacre. Either way, people are dying. But in the grand scheme of things from a neutral perspective I'm more willing to accept a conquered nation taking pot shots at the occupying army than the sitting government to anhilate its own citizens. I don't want American soldiers to die, but I can understand why some Iraqis might do that more than I can understand a government killing its own people.

my point is that our involvement in Iraq has increased the threat and power of Islamist fundamentalist organizations who wish to do harm to the US and who wish to institute theocratic goverments in the Middle East.

And my point is that our foreign policy can't be based on fear of what terrorists can or will do. They're going to do their evil anyway. As long as Israel exists and we support its right

Re:Insightful?

[commodoresloat]

Again I don't feel like going tit for tat here because you're obviously disingenuous, you just want to support the bush policy and will make any argument that is expedient in spite of contradicting yourself. Hans Blix made the statement that he didn't need Saddam's support to continue inspections well before the first shot in the war was fired; it's easy enough to verify this but I don't expect you to. You consider France spineless for listening to her own citizens rather than being bullied by Bush; whatever, don't tell me Bush is promoting democracy while he's telling most world leaders to go against their constituents' will and side with Bush. You did call Saddam's massacres "terrorism"; go back and read your own posts. You say we went to war to enforce UN resolutions but then when the UN didn't support us you say we went to enforce our interest, which you still refuse to define in any meaningful way, which just happens to coincide with enforcing UN resolutions (which were already being enforced in other ways, i.e., inspections, which other countries, e.g. France and Germany, exhibited a strong inclination to help beef up, yet of course we rebuffed them).

I agree with you that our policy shouldn't be based on fear of terrorism, but there's no question that reducing terrorism should be a significant goal (not appeasing it or running from it as you seem to imply). I think it's a more important goal than enforcing UN resolutions that the UN doesn't need our help with. And stop acting like Iraq was any kind of threat to us when you haven't answered a single argument in that regard -- there was no WMD, and no threat to us or even his neighbors, since 1991, and our administration has to have known that.

Finally, re chemical weapons -- they were used in WWI. After that war Churchill used them in the Middle East (slaughtering Kurds, ironically) as an "experiment." They were used in WWII. In Vietnam the US used napalm extensively, as well as other chemical weapons, which were also used in the 1991 Gulf War. The US stockpiles many more dangerous chemicals and even biological agents like anthrax. My point is not that it's right or wrong, but like it or not, chemical weapons have been part of conventional military arsenals for a century, and armies train to deal with them. My point was simply that it was propagandistic for Bush to act as if chemical weapons represent the same kind of threat as nukes. Certainly not to defend Saddam's use of them in the 80s or argue that his having them wasn't illegal. It is telling, however, that we haven't even found that in Iraq -- I surely expected we would at least find some illegal chems that would be used to justify this war, but every single lead has turned into a dead end.

Re:Insightful?

[letxa2000]

you just want to support the bush policy and will make any argument that is expedient in spite of contradicting yourself.

Nope. If I were Bush I probably wouldn't have invaded Iraq. I was very unconvinced that the war was necessary back in March and am not entirely surprised we haven't found WMD evidence. I am very much conservative Republican, but am not defending Bush, per se, or his policies. I will, however, defend him when someone wants to blame everything that's gone wrong on him and totally ignore Clinton's (in)actions as part of what lead to the problem--and if you'll go back in the thread you'll see that THAT'S what provoked me to enter this thread, not any particular desire to defend all of Bush's policies.

And although I probably wouldn't have invaded Iraq, I personally *do* believe that the world will be better 10 years from now then it would have been if we had just kept the endless no-fly zones, sanctions, and arms inspections going another decade.

Hans Blix made the statement that he didn't need Saddam's support to continue inspections well before the first shot in the war was fired

It's your argument, not mine. I'm not going to try to dig it up. I certainly don't remember it. I *do* remember suggestings being made in February that they could keep working, keep inspecting, but once again it amounted to the U.N. dragging its feet and accepting Saddam's non-compliance rather than simply demanding compliance with existing U.N. resolutions. At some point you have to say "This has gone on long enough." I think 12 years was plenty of time.

You consider France spineless for listening to her own citizens rather than being bullied by Bush

I consider France spineless because of its history, and precisely because its president listened only to his citizens rather than considering the international implications of his action or inaction. Chirac, as far as I can tell, like Clinton was more worried about what the polls said his people thought rather than doing what needed to be done. The right thing isn't always the popular thing.

You say we went to war to enforce UN resolutions but then when the UN didn't support us you say we went to enforce our interest, which you still refuse to define in any meaningful way

Why was it in our interest to go into Iraq?

1. Iraq has a history of aggression against its neighbors.
2. Iraq and its neighbors are in a very sensitive part of the world--politically, economically, and religiously.
3. The world was convinced enough that Iraq had illegal weapons programs to pass U.N. resolutions demanding inspections to confirm they no longer existed.
4. Iraq dragged its feet and did not comply with these resolutions for 12 years.
5. 9/11 happened which made the U.S. very keen to anything that could be a threat.
6. Saddam continued to drag his feet and give every appearance he was hiding something, even in the face of mounting diplomatic and military force being arrayed against him.
7. Given all of the above and the new reality that just takes some joker with a car to destroy an American city, the U.S. took action.

Now, if it turns out we find nothing and evidence shows there was no WMD programs in 2003 then Saddam will go down in history as the worst poker player ever. But given all of the above you cannot ignore the perceived threat to the U.S. and other countries.

I think it's a more important goal than enforcing UN resolutions that the UN doesn't need our help with.

So, ballpark figure... how many years or decades do you think a violent dictator who from time to time launches WMD programs and attacks his neighbors should be allowed to ignore U.N. resolutions designed specifically to keep that dictator and his WMD programs in check? At what point would you say it is reasonable to say "You know, this just isn't working?" Or do you think such dictators should be able to ignore international demands forever?

Re:Insightful?

[commodoresloat]

Nope. If I were Bush I probably wouldn't have invaded Iraq. I was very unconvinced that the war was necessary back in March and am not entirely surprised we haven't found WMD evidence.

Then we agree. It's not clear to me why you continue to defend Bush. I realized you started this thread to bash Clinton rather than defend Bush but you seem to be defending Bush here (and I certainly don't want to defend Clinton). It's difficult to argue with you because you keep changing your arguments, so who knows. This probably will be my last participation in a debate I've spent too much time on anyway...

At some point you have to say "This has gone on long enough." I think 12 years was plenty of time.

At some point you have to say, what has gone on long enough? The UN trying to enforce its rules with uncooperative governments? Like we've been doing with Israel? That's what the UN does. It shouldn't escalate to war unless there is a real threat to national sovereignty. Iraq wasn't threatening anyone. All it was doing was being intransigent. Not a helpful thing, but hardly the end of the world.

I consider France spineless because of its history, and precisely because its president listened only to his citizens rather than considering the international implications of his action or inaction. Chirac, as far as I can tell, like Clinton was more worried about what the polls said his people thought rather than doing what needed to be done. The right thing isn't always the popular thing.

So you're saying French leaders should have made decisions totally at odds with public opinion in France (and pretty much everywhere else in the world) because those leaders, blessed with the wisdom of the likes of Colin Powell, knew better than their people? I know right doesn't = popular but nonetheless I consider democracy very important in national decisionmaking for nations that call themselves democratic. I think it's the height of hypocrisy for the US to prattle on about democracy while asking almost every government in the world to so blatantly disregard the express desires and views of their citizens.

1. Iraq has a history of aggression against its neighbors.

Huh? Not since 1991. How does this justify war? Lots of nations have histories of aggression, many more recent than that. It hardly makes Iraq the kind of threat to US interests that justifies our soldiers fighting and dying. I'm sorry, but when somebody fights and dies or kills under the American flag they'd better be doing it for a damn good reason; Iraq's "history of aggression" ain't cutting it.

Iraq and its neighbors are in a very sensitive part of the world--politically, economically, and religiously.

that's hardly any more reason to attack Iraq than any of its neighbors.

3. The world was convinced enough that Iraq had illegal weapons programs to pass U.N. resolutions demanding inspections to confirm they no longer existed.

No it was precisely not convinced of that; hence no UN resolution supporting war. The world, at least as expressed through UN votes, was convinced that inspections and sanctions were an effective way to contain whatever threat Iraq might pose.

4. Iraq dragged its feet and did not comply with these resolutions for 12 years.

Again, this hardly justifies a war. In 12 years Iraq attacked none of its neighbors, exploded no nuclear weapons, committed no major terrorist actions, gave no WMD to al Qaeda, and did nothing else to harm US national security. If nothing has happened in 12 years, why the sudden urgency in 2003? Gimme a break.

5. 9/11 happened which made the U.S. very keen to anything that could be a threat.

Yeah I remember; we were scared of our own shadow for a while. But my very point is this fear and paranoia is misplaced. Iraq wasn't a threat and had nothing to do with al Qaeda during this time.

6. Saddam continued to drag his feet and give ever

Re:Insightful?

[letxa2000]

Sorry about the delay in responding. I was in New York City on vacation. Actually stayed at the hotel right in front of Ground Zero. Quite amazing.

At some point you have to say, what has gone on long enough? The UN trying to enforce its rules with uncooperative governments?

Yes. Unless the UN is to be an ineffective body that can be completely ignored. Which would be fine with me. But if the UN is going to act like they are important then they better back up their words with actions.

French leaders should have made decisions totally at odds with public opinion in France (and pretty much everywhere else in the world

Check the list of support again. Most of Europe *did* support the U.S. Granted, not the "major" powers such as France and Germany, but they are only "major" because of tradition.

You then went on to pick apart the reasoning for attacking Iraq. While each of your points is well taken and any single reason would not have been sufficient you ignore the fact that *all* those points applied to Iraq. Your response appears as though each point must, alone, justify the entire attack when in fact all those points taken together is the justification.

Me: Last I heard from the left-wing folks, that was killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children...
You: I agree with those folks; there should have been a better way to undermine Saddam's power without attacking Iraq's people so callously. But invading and occupying the nation as an alternative is just stupid.

Ok, so what was the other way? If you don't want to impose sanctions (which arguably hurt the people more than Saddam) and you don't want to invade, what do you do? Just keep saying "Pretty please, show us the weapons" until he gets tired of ignoring the UN and complies?

bout Saddam hiding his WMD... I don't know what to say. You're so convinced he had them even in the face of evidence to the contrary that you have to make up stories about what he must have done with them.

Please re-read my last post. I said I was not convinced about WMD and am not surprised they haven't found them. I *did* mention that even if he did have them I still wouldn't be surprised that we haven't found them. But to suggest that I am "so convinced he had them" is ignoring my past posts.

My point all along has been the country of Iraq was no threat to us and our military action there was absolutely unnecessary and indeed I believe it was unconscionable.

Perhaps. Of course, a week before 9/11 I doubt anyone would have thought Afghanistan was a threat. And I know you'll say that that was Al Qaeda and not Afghanistan, but they were closely intertwined.

I still believe Bush's actions can be explained by what I mentioned some time ago. 9/11 happened, Afghanistan was hit. He asked his people, "Ok, who else is on the deck that could give us a problem in the next 10 or 20 years." And I'm sure Iraq, Iran, and North Korea were that list. Based on UN resolutions Iraq was the easiest to take care of, especially since the U.S. arguably was enforcing the no-fly zones and over time that was getting tiring for us, too. It's all good and fine that the UN is willing to do nothing while the U.S. and Britain do the daily housekeeping in the no-fly zones, but perhaps the US wasn't interested in staying there and enforcing no-fly zones until Saddam and his sons all died of natural causes?

What will be more interesting is how Iran and North Korea are handled, both by the US and the UN. North Korea has already followed Iraq's lead and booted UN inspectors. Defying the UN seems to be the latest fashion among dictators and just goes to show how useless the UN is if it isn't backed up with force, when necessary.

distinction

[talient]

China != Asia

dvd regions all over again

[DarkLox]

To me this looks like the DVD Region coding scheme.

You have different regions and each dvd is suitable only for that region. So what if another region (Region X) has a badass movie that you want to watch in region Y...of course , as with everything, there are ways around it..but its more of a pain in the ass than it is actually helpful to the market.

For once...I agree with intel...ESPECIALLY since this is an open source market when it comes to linux.

Re:It makes sence.. (OT)

[Anonymous Coward]

But the meanest thing that he ever did Was before he left, he went and named me "Sue."-J Cash

What a great man (Johnny Cash). May he rest in peace.

It's not about Windows

[AlexCV]

This isn't about Wintel. Intel wants China to use Windows because Windows runs on x86. China has a nacent microprocessor industry. Most chinese do not have PCs or modern ones if they have any.

Combine this with a cheap architecture that is either locally developed or licensed for manufacturing until indigenous CPUs catch up and you get the problem.

Remember that Linux is multi-platform? Get the local industry to switch to Linux, port Linux to ChinaCPU or whatever they call it and proceed to have a 100% homegrown market with 1 billion potential customers. Sans Intel, Microsoft, etc.

Simple, eh?

Or perhaps Intels loves the Blue Screens Of Death?

[Taco Cowboy]

Strange.

Actually, it ain't that strage at all.

You see, Linux doesn't give you BSOD and Intel may have missed it so much that it wants China to be BLUE-SCREENED-TO-DEATH ???

Dragon Ball is just the first salvo !

[Taco Cowboy]

If you think that DRAGON BALL thing gonna let China rule the world, please, think again.

According to China's plan - and they are progressing very rapidly , - the DRAGON BALL chip is considered as a TRIAL RUN .

The DRAGON BALL chip runs at the 133-233 Mhz Pentium I / II level, and the chip will be used to power word-processor machines in the government offices.

The next chip will come out 2nd quarter of 2004, and it will run at Pentium III level. This next chip will also be considered as a trial run, albeit a beta-test, if you will.

Then they will have something up in 2005/2006, which will run at Pentium IV level, with yet another version at a 12/18 months interval.

According to their plan, the Chinese want to catch up with the world standard sometimes at 2015-2025 timeframe.

We hear a lot of nano-research of the west, and the Chinese have poured untold billions into that field as well. All their investments will come to fruition during the next decades, and we will see that perhaps China will start to export technology by then.

And by 2030, China may be as technologicially advance as Japan. By 2050, China will catch up with USA. By 2080, China may lead the world in technology.

This is according to their masterplan.

That is, if Osama Bin Laden doesn't nuke America first. If there's any disaster happens to USA, China's plan will only be accelerated.

Not that China is not afraid of Osama and his gang of Moslem loonies, it's that China doesn't play game with them loonies.

China's TAKE NO PRISONER approach against the Moslem loonies should be used by USA if it wants to survive for the long run.

Let's hope we can see an honest neck-to-neck race between the USA and China in about 50 years or so, without having some loonies wrecking havoc all around the world.

Re:Dragon Ball is just the first salvo !

[Minna Kirai]

Clueless posting is fun, huh? The creative spelling just adds to it.

If you think that DRAGON BALL thing gonna let China rule the world, please, think again.

The Dragon Ball chip is a US product. Motorola has been selling them for, oh, 6 years now.

According to their plan, the Chinese want to catch up with the world standard sometimes at 2015-2025 timeframe.

Oh no! China has a PLAN. We know how well their last plan worked!

If there's any disaster happens to USA, China's plan will only be accelerated.

Any disaster which hurts the US will slow China's development. They won't have education for their engineers, they won't have research to sponge off of, and there won't be an overseas market for the cheap manufactured goods that provides all their discretionary income.

when are you guys going to realize...

[Sivaram_Velauthapill]

When are you Americans going to realize that the Democrats and the Republicans are different sides of the same coin?

Sivaram Velauthapillai

Article is BS

[0x0d0a]

Strange.

Intel has been one of Linux's greatest supporters. It has helped Intel break into the risc dominated unix field with cheap lintel servers.

The problem is that the original article had a significant slant, and the Slashdot post warped this entirely out of context. Look at the original quote. Barrett is simply warning China that trying to *deliberately* produce incompatible systems to protect local tech companies is a bad idea. (If the only computer you can use in China is Chinese-made, it helps out local tech.) AFAIK, Intel isn't even at risk -- China's best efforts aren't anywhere near competitive to Intel. The statement is a pretty good, clear, reasonable technical argument.

If Barrett ever mentioned Linux, it wasn't part of the quote. The suggestion that he was pushing against Linux was introduced by the article author. We have no idea whether he was talking about hardware, application software, or what. Heck, even if he *was* talking about Linux, I'll happily buy into his quote. While using Linux may be a very good idea, using it because you're trying to deliberately introduce incompatibility to protect local industry is quite stupid in the long run.

Re:Article is BS

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe china is thinking about producing incompatible systems when the time to implement DRM and "Sony, Intel To Push Content Protection" comes. See the link from yesterday: URL

Re:Article is BS

[shaggie]

Agree with you. I think he was only referring to if China, Japan and Korea's initiatives end up not adopting open standards. If their system is based on Unicode and running a customized variant of linux with focus on their respective language as the default interface, it should be just fine.

Ultimately if they are smart enough, that's the way they'll go.

Obvious reasons

[shachart]

Actually, you could easily connect this implicit Intel threat to the (rather lame) chinese attempt to independently develop x86 CPUs. I believe they have a PII-400 equivalent right now.

Proprietary Linux?

[Newcastle22]

Quote from article: "You have to ask yourself this: is there an advantage to having a proprietary standard in your country?" he added. To adopt unique regional technologies would mean "not participating in the rest of the world because you have a proprietary standard, and not being able to inter-operate with the rest of the world. I fail to see the benefit". Proprietary standard? There is something here I don't understand. What exactly are these Asian governments doing? It is not possible to turn Linux proprietary; its use is copylefted under the GPL! What the hell does 'proprietary' have to do with anything? Are the Asian governments making a 'Linux-like' OS? Perhaps they should called it LnLinux (LnLinux is not Linux). d

Corporations really need reality check

[sharok]

For years now we have been seeing economics be influenced by the smart words of snappy CEOs. Meanwhile, layoffs are a dime a dozen, outsourcing is rampant and millions of people have been robbed of their savings by white-collared thieves who purport to tell the world how things should work - their way.
It is a fine paradox to see that a dictatorial country is going to do what brain-deficient democracies are not able to - reintroduce fair competition.

Let's get something straight...

[turgid]

If anything this should give Intel an advantage because proprietary chips are more expensive or slower because they can not be produced in bulk like vainilla P4's.

intel processors are PROPRIETARY. They are not a published, open standard, like SPARC and MIPS. You can license the SPARC for $99 IIRC. You can not do this with intel. You must pay much more money to license their instruction set, under much more restrictive terms.

intel processors (x86) are COMMODITY processors. They are a "de-facto" standard, in the same way that Microsoft Windows is a de-facto standard operating system. It is in no way Open. It is proprietary.

Gcc is also most heavily optimized for the intel platform.

This bit is at least correct. That's because most people have PeeCees with intel (or compatible) processors in them, and most development, by default, has been done in this architecture. Optimisations on this architecture therefore benefit most people.

Re:Let's get something straight...

[pmz]

intel processors are PROPRIETARY. They are not a published, open standard, like SPARC and MIPS.

Very true. If/when the DRM smackdown occurs, I see SPARC and MIPS as being an architectural safe-haven, where fifteen years' worth of hardware is available and widely supported by OSS systems. There also is nothing to stop a startup company or a foreign company from manufacturing SPARC chips and a commodity motherboard for PCs, if there is a market for them. If the US imposes tarrifs or bans on non-DRM processors, then that will be a pretty clear indication that the US' best days are over and that "lady liberty" has been demoted to "assistant crack whore".

China has no copyright/patent/licensing treaties??

[jotaeleemeese]

Bullshit.

Without that they would have gained no access to the WTO.

China is commited (at least in paper) to protect copyrights in temrs internationally acceptable. Patents is another matter.

Of course once you joing the WTO the intelligent response is to use technology unecumbered by copyrights, that levels the playing field if you are starting at a clear disadvantage on the IT field.

China's response?

[Rogerborg]

In five years we will be the biggest part of the world market, and you'll our beeyatch. Beg like a little beeyatch.

Will anyone buy a Dragon chip?

[Halcyon-X]

It's gotta be great to have a custom platform built to work with Linux. No more hardware or software compatibility issues. I wonder what hardware will be available?

Proprietary Standards

[chiasmus1]

I especially liked the part where he said:

The high costs of such a two-pronged approach would make it difficult to compete. "You have to ask yourself this: is there an advantage to having a proprietary standard in your country?" he added.

Since when has an OS with Linux as the base been proprietary?

A freelancer wrote the article, B U T....

[LINM]

The editor probably picked the title.

Did you see the M$FT ad on the opposite page?

Intel? Ha!

[vortexau]

Then, if Intel is SO tied to the apronstrings of MS . . . .

it MUST be time for China to switch to PPC! :-)

( NB- Did you see the /. story on Mini-ITX+PPC? )
.

Some info..

[minasoko]

For those posting here saying China is going to be this massive technological giant and with a population of 1.2 billion America and Europe will brushed aside, are way off. I wonder if you've ever even been to China?

At the moment they're having a hard enough time trying to feed their population and combat the massive spread of disease, let alone building the infrastructure needed to accomplish what you're suggesting. Most of those 1.2 billion people are poor as poor can be, living in remote areas. They are not the skilled workers you assume.

The earliest you're going to see China make any kind of in-road into that market on the scale that's been implied, is 50 years minimum.

It's pretty simple:

[pmz]

1) China is a sovereign nation.
2) They can do what they damn well please.
3) Just as long as they don't blow us up in the process.
4) Everyone is better off for it.
5) Gee, maybe Intel will have to forfeit their near-monopoly on commodity CPUs. Oh well.

Thank you

[Tyler Durden]

Unfortunately I just started reading this thread recently. But right when I saw people posting about Clinton failing to receive Bin Laden, the Al Franken excerpt came to mind.

If this wasn't so late, I'd suggest you be modded through the roof.

China WMD

[codeguru73]

wait till they are accused of having (WMD)weapons of mass demonopolising