Redhat and Intel Team Up for Linux Business

Red Hat and Intel announced today at LinuxWorld Boston that they would be entering a partnership to help customers "plan for, accelerate and optimize their deployments of Linux solutions." From the article: "'We're responding to what customers have told us they really need to support their advanced deployments of Linux and open source,' said Tim Yeaton, executive vice president of Enterprise Solutions at Red Hat. 'The programs Intel and Red Hat have selected are aimed at equipping customers with in-depth domain knowledge and providing hard core data to make complex architectural decisions.'"

Comments

woot

[networkBoy]

This is super cool.
Now maybe we'll see performance improvements that can tightly take advantage of the Intel archecture.
-nB

Re:woot

[Anonymous Coward]

Now maybe we'll see performance improvements that can tightly take advantage of the Intel archecture.


Nope. Instead we will get functionality removed if you try to use AMD. <cough>skype</cough>

Re:woot

[x2A]

...like, recompile distro using ICC, change ICC license to be compatible with doing so...? :-p

snipe

[sloths]

snipe

Proofs of Concept

[Bimo_Dude]

FTA:

Proof of Concept Support: Customers can save time and resources by running proof of concepts using the state-of-the-art hardware, software and technical support offered at the program centers. Customers will be invited to actively participate at the local centers.

So... when the customers are done with their proofs of concept, will they then build out their apps on the AMD boxes in their own datacenters?

Re:Proofs of Concept

[Syberghost]

So... when the customers are done with their proofs of concept, will they then build out their apps on the AMD boxes in their own datacenters?

Some. But most will continue to use Intel for the near future, and even if in the farther future AMD passes Intel in Enterprise server sales, this'll still be worth Intel's time because they're not just competing with AMD; they're also competing with Sun and IBM in the server space. Linux competes with that even more (currently) than it does with Windows, in my opinion.

I personally prefer Ubuntu on AMD, but the Fortune 500 company for which I work uses RedHat on Intel, and it's a joy to work with but could be better. Hopefully this will help make it better.

Re:Proofs of Concept

[Bimo_Dude]

I really do hope that having the customers around in their centers does lead Intel to improving the efficiency and temerature of their processors. For now, I certainly do prefer AMD, especially for mulit-core, and am fortunate enough that the company where I work has started buying servers using this setup. These servers are really nice. :)

like most linux businesses...

[Anonymous Coward]

this will FAIL!

yahaha!

If nothing else, this will be useful.

[khasim]

From TFA:

Reference Solutions and Certified Solution Stacks: The program will give customers access to information about previously tested or deployed solutions based on Red Hat and Intel technology.

I absolutely HATE having a vendor say "sure it will work" or "sure it does that". And when you buy it, you get to pay for a support call so tech support can tell you "no way, it's never been able to do that". Which is why I now demand that I speak to their other clients who have actually implemented whatever I'm looking for.

I know that the company I work for is not unique.

I know that someone else had probably already done what I want to do in the way I want to do it.

So let me find out how they did it and I'll buy your product.

This is HUGE!

[Iago515]

In my opinion, it may look small, but the simple fact that Intel is partnering with a Linux distro will mean that other hardware vendors will accelerate their development for Linux. This, in my opinion is still one of the biggest hurdles. I'm not a developer and think that those who are are doing a great job, but I still have hardware problems (HP LaserJet 1000 on SuSE, tv cards, etc.).

Let's see what else comes out of this, but I think it's a wake-up call to other hardware vendors.

Re:This is HUGE!

[i8puppies]

Exactly.
With a company like Intel teaming up with a Linux distro, it's a major endorsement from a large reputible company for open source products.

As for hardware vendors, yeah, this should be a big wakeup call. As it is, most Linux drivers are reverse engineered, and even the ones that are given out by the vendors are very poorly written (cough, ATI, cough), save a few (nVidia, LinkSys). Having to reverse engineer hardware in order to make drivers can only get you so much performance out of your hardware, and in most cases nowhere near it's full vendor-driver-potential. This is why getting tv cards, printers, etc to work in Linux is so frustrating. Hopefully this will open the door for hardware vendors to be like "Huhwha? Linux drivers? OK! Here you go!"

Intel Not Exactly A Do-No-Evil Corp.

[Null Nihils]

The first thought that comes to mind is that Intel would like nothing more than to subvert Linux so that it runs best on Intel architecture. Keep in mind that it's indeed very easy for an OS to become permanently tied to a certain platform.

This hasn't been the first Slashdot article that brings fears to mind about Linux being pulled too far in the direction of corporate interests. Don't get me wrong, though, some attention from big companies can be very beneficial to projects like Linux. But still, here's hoping that the Linux community is diligent enough to stop Intel from fulfilling, within the Linux world, its agenda of domination...

Re:Intel Not Exactly A Do-No-Evil Corp.

[BigCheese]

If that were the case why haven't they donated their compiler backend to GCC?
The Intel compiler for Linux is quite good (so I'm told) and since that's not a money maker for them you'd think they would make it part of GCC.

Re:Intel Not Exactly A Do-No-Evil Corp.

[Locke2005]

Uh, Linux already works best on x86 machines. If you're saying that Intel will add optimizations to make Linux run better on Intel CPUs than it does on AMD, well then... AMD is welcome to do exactly the same thing. Plus, it is difficult to make AMD chips run worse without also making some Intel chips run worse as well. The nice thing about open source is you can choose which optimizations will work best for your machine.

Re:Intel Not Exactly A Do-No-Evil Corp.

[Null Nihils]

I am not arguing against this being, most likely, a Good Thing, I am just noting what thoughts should come to mind when dealing with an entity like Intel.

Also, see my reply to this post.

Re:Intel Not Exactly A Do-No-Evil Corp.

[x2A]

"The first thought that comes to mind is that Intel would like nothing more than to subvert Linux so that it runs best on Intel architecture"

There's two ways to do this:
1 - Improve Linux on Intel architecture. We're talking about improvements here, can't see any problem with them doing this.
2 - Cause problems with Linux running on non-Intel architecture. Erm... I just can't see this happening. Eg, getting a patch into mainline kernel with improves it isn't the easiest thing in the world (with the amount of people who will disagree with how it's done, how it should be done etc). One that hurts performance/stability on entire architectures, is gonna be even tougher.

"Keep in mind that it's indeed very easy for an OS to become permanently tied to a certain platform"

Are we talking about the same Linux?

Re:Intel Not Exactly A Do-No-Evil Corp.

[Anonymous Coward]

It can also be very detrimental, such as the push for gnome/gtk among so many large distros. I blame ximian, those fuckers need to go back to using windows or mac or whatever other thing they want to clone wholesale this week.

Re:Intel Not Exactly A Do-No-Evil Corp.

[NerveGas]

Because now that AMD's chips have SSE 1/2/3 hardware, using Intel's compiler often results in speed increases on AMD chips as well. It doesn't help Intel if AMD gets the same boost!

steve

Re:Intel Not Exactly A Do-No-Evil Corp.

[BbMaj7]

Well if Intel puts the effort and cash into getting better performance, the only way for AMD to catch up is to make sure they give the same level of support to Linux.

I see this as a win-win situation. There's nothing like an arms race to push the boundaries.

Re:Intel Not Exactly A Do-No-Evil Corp.

[wild_berry]

-- Cause problems with Linux running on non-Intel architecture. Erm... I just can't see this happening. Eg, getting a patch into mainline kernel with improves it isn't the easiest thing in the world (with the amount of people who will disagree with how it's done, how it should be done etc). One that hurts performance/stability on entire architectures, is gonna be even tougher.

Did you not get the memo about this year's Underhanded C Contest? The task is to design innocent-looking code which runs well on one architecture but orders of magnitude worse on another. I suspect it can be done: imagine patches in the kernel by Intel which were included in K8-optimised builds but which slowed down AMD execution of the software?

I hope that above paragraph is an unlikely paranoid fantasy.

Intel is not just processors

[linuxwrangler]

For all the other posters talking only about "Intel Architecture", remember that Intel is more than processors. They make network switches, motherboards, NICs, etc.

Here's something to watch: Intel has an entire line of telephony products (Dialogic) but the lack of open-source drivers has frustrated some development efforts. This is probably about to change. I spent some time at the Intel booth at VON in San Jose last month and he mentioned that Intel plans to open-source the Dialogic drivers over the next few months. This would be great news for those developing Linux telephony apps.

Re:Intel is not just processors

[grasshoppa]

This would be great news for those developing Linux telephony apps.

Wow, master of the understatement. That would be *HUGE*. Already there is considerable momentum behind projects like asterisk. Just imagine if we got access to good telephony hardware in linux.

That'd be a boon. Not only to those of us in the field, but to businesses world wide.

Re:Intel is not just processors

[linuxwrangler]

Yes, it would. You heard it here first. :)

Re:Intel is not just processors

[NerveGas]

Is the holdup really the hardware? I don't do a ton of phone stuff, but from the passing experience I've had with several phone systems, they're nothing more than a number of PRI interfaces, ports for the phones, a general-purpose CPU, and a hard drive. And many require another machine (usually a Windows machine) to run all of the IVR, voice mail, and every other feature. In other words, nearly everything is done in software on relatively general-purpose hardware.

Digium makes the interfaces, and there are plenty of IP telephones, so that takes care of the in and out, at least to some extent. It seems to me that there's at least a decent start at the hardware, and it's the software features that now have to pull the load. Am I wrong?

Re:Intel is not just processors

[grasshoppa]

You've got the shape of it, let me flesh it out a bit.

In the small to mid size business, asterisk ( and digium ) is where it's at ( as far as the free stuff. And I hear it's better than a lot of the paid for stuff ). Now picture intel hardware working with asterisk. Competition, pure and simple. And consumers would benefit.

Also, imagine what kind of attention Intel can bring to this area of linux. I know many linux admins who have never heard of asterisk. And with that kind of exposure on an already established project, it's usability would skyrocket.

Re:Intel is not just processors

[bill_mcgonigle]

Already there is considerable momentum behind projects like asterisk. Just imagine if we got access to good telephony hardware in linux.

I saw an Intel linux telephony box at LinuxWorld last week. Lots of ports with both x86 and xscale processors on it.

I Fortell.....

[mpapet]

Synergized partners who realize new markets delivering revolutionary technology with ground breaking service.

Seriously, I hope this is successful "service and support" that every corporate IT media pundit claims Linux is missing.

Re:I Fortell.....

[ch-chuck]

Funniest thing I've read in a long time:

Thanks - same here ;)) <tears rolling down cheeks>

One small step for Linux

[vleo]

That's one small step for Linux, one giant leap for Intel :-)

Re:One small step for Linux

[x2A]

hehe, spot the typo! It's "That's one small step for A Linux, one giant leap for Intel", dummy! ;-)

stupid

[j1mmy]

i've preferred amd's opteron processors for all my business hardware purchases over the last couple years. redhat was the first distro I ran on x86_64 hardware because it was the only one i could get to install in 64-bit mode. why intel?

Re:stupid

[x2A]

"why intel?"

They offered? AMD haven't? I'm sure Redhat wouldn't have made a decision to NOT work with AMD.

obvious doom

[brock bitumen]

intel has now very obviously joined the "anti-m$" team (they get stronger every day)

goliath is gonna fall.

Re:obvious doom

[Chr0nik]

Do you mean intel or M$? Because AMD is no longer a minor threat to arrogantly ignore anymore. And AMD vs. Intel is defenitely a David and Goliath story in technology if ever there was one.

And ironically enough, the anti-trust suits against M$ have clarified the laws that are making it possible for AMD to slap Intel around in court in their anti-trust case.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/03/02/amd_subpoe nas_skype/

Anti-MS types always crack me up with their stifling innovation arguments, while simultaneously jumping on any bandwagon that pokes a stick at Microsoft. Regardless of whether or not the people holding the stick are just as evil.

Re:obvious doom

[x2A]

"Regardless of whether or not the people holding the stick are just as evil"

No one is as evil as Microsoft! Even Sadam's Iraq was run on OpenSource! ;-)

Re:Mod Parent Interesting

[mpapet]

At least!

interesting

[goldfita]

Redhat wanted to interview me for a virtualization development position a few days ago. This sounds like good news for anyone working with open source. But I wonder what Intel is getting out of it. Or are they anticipating future rewards when open source has more market share?

Re:interesting

[naelurec]

Huh? What do you mean? Intel gets a certified partner status with Red Hat .. Red Hat talks with customer who needs Linux solution, customer buys Intel because it is certified to work in "complex architectural deployments".

So company buys intel chips, motherbords, network adapters, telephony, embedded solutions, yada yada yada..

Gives me a warm fuzzy knowing a company is backing its hardware, providing drivers and support for my operating system. While community built drivers are nice it doesn't necessarily extract the full performance of my hardware, so its nice to know a vendor provides this level of support.

Re:interesting

[Jason Earl]

Intel sells hardware, but for the hardware to be useful it needs software. Therefore when purchasing Intel solutions purchasers always have to look at the total price of the package including software. Commodity software lowers the overal price of the solution without touching Intel's margins at all. That makes it possible for Intel to sell the total solution at a lower price meaning more sales at the same profitability per sale.

This is basically what Microsoft has been doing to the hardware manufacturers for years. Because there was competition on the hardware side hardware prices have dropped dramatically over the years and Microsoft has ridden that wave to ever increasing sales and profit levels. Well, now Intel is finally wising up and realising that turnabout is fair play.

Long story made short. It is in Intel's best interest to see more competition in the software space as long as the software all runs on its chips.

Re:interesting

[Johnny Mnemonic]

Long story made short. It is in Intel's best interest to see more competition in the software space as long as the software all runs on its chips.

This announcement coupled with the recent, exclusive, partnership with Apple makes me think that Intel REALLY wants to get out of bed with Microsoft and the "WinTel" alliance. So what does Microsoft do now? Make their stuff work better on AMD and promote them? Cripple their support on Intel and let the benchmarkers talk about it? Price leverage?

It's interesting that Intel is dancing with others than brung them, and they think they can get away with it. They must have calculated the repercussions MS would impose--but decided they had to support multiple OSes anyway.

Very interesting. The upside is that if it works, both OS X and RH will have Intel-only optimizations, and as those platforms grow, AMD will be marginalized. The downside would be a strong AMD-MS alliance, such that neither OS X nor RH grow and Intel is relegated to being the CPU for "other" OSes but AMD is the best choice for Windows.

One can only surmise that Intel is seeing the alternative OSes reaching critical mass and preparing to break out of their niche markets, and Intel wants to be the favorite when that happens. And there are smart people at Intel that wouldn't make that forecast lightly...

Re:interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

It's interesting that Intel is dancing with others than brung them, and they think they can get away with it. They must have calculated the repercussions MS would impose--but decided they had to support multiple OSes anyway.

Who brung who? This was an IBM and Intel party when it started. Your post is 20 years late.

What this looks like to me is that it's time to muddy the constraint-of-trade abuse-of-monopoly collusion waters again.

Of course, since doing things for just one reason doesn't leverage your synergy it's also an opportunity to unload some promised Itanic marketing partnership dollars as HP servers delivered to this group paid for at cost and accounted for at dreamsheet.

What it's costing Redhat is the question on my mind. I hope they worked both ends of the deal and got the high rollers to foot the whole bill. They'll probably have to move a couple clusters in return and give Itanic one more round of support.

And when the marketing dollars are all gone, everyone will quietly forget the whole thing. The temps will move on to another gig just as full of opportunities for excellence.

How?

[XanC]

Intel's optimizations affect optimization for AMD and other architectures not one whit. If Intel makes their stuff works better with Linux, or makes Linux work better with their stuff, nobody is harmed, and Intel's customers gain. AMD, HP, Sun, whoever, will have an incentive to make optimizations for their architectures too.

Re:How?

[Null Nihils]

Provided only the source is changed a bit, the fear of Linux being subverted by Intel (or any other hardware vendor wanting Linux to support their "features") is largely baseless, albeit still a possibility.

But keep in mind there are lots of sneaky tricks that Intel can try, because sneaky tricks are the name of such a corp.'s game. For example, imagine trying a certain distro, distributed in binary (say, RedHat, or even a "downstream" one like CentOS) and finding strange problems when using it on AMD hardware...

Most of the people using Linux are users, not kernel hackers. And Intel is all about screwing the user, aka. the consumer, to further its own ends.

2nd + 2nd = 1st?

[Proof_of_death]

Do Intel and and Redhat think that teaming up will make up for them being second choice? Maybe only intel chips will be able to run Firefox or something.

Again?

[Russ Steffen]

So they're pairing up again? I've still got some junk left over from the party Red Hat and Intel (and Dell that time) threw at LinuxWorld 2000 to announce some kind of partnership then.

Actually, Intel indirectly employs Linus....

[Glasswire]

Intel, as one of the founders and main supporter of the Open Source Development Lab where Linus works and I think most of the lab activity for OSDL still takes place at an ex-Intel building in Beaverton, OR.

Intel has been helping to make Linux better for years and doesn't get the credit for the millions of dollars and other resources it has put into Open Source.

Re:Actually, Intel indirectly employs Linus....

[accessdeniednsp]

Then why is the ipw2100/2200/2195 driver a huge pile of crap that has to be hacked by a tiny team of people? (despite all having '@intel.com' e-mail addresses). Where is the driver support for this chipset? Where is the almighty Intel? No, I don't think Intel deserves a lot of credit. If they showed any results that came close to their lip service, then I'd rethink.

The original Becker eepro/eepro100 driver stomped all over Intel's own driver. Vendors can't write drivers worth a crap. They make hardware and should toss up the specs to decent hackers. Separation of duties.

Re:Actually, Intel indirectly employs Linus....

[Breakfast Pants]

FCC regulations. They have to proxy a lot of stuff to the firmware to get around the issue at the expense of all kinds of stuff.

Redhat kills the Fedora Foundation.

[DAldredge]

To my fellow Fedora community members:

As many of you are aware, FUDCon Boston is this Friday. One of the most
important topics that we will be discussing there is the future of the
Fedora Project, specifically with regard to the Fedora Foundation.

I'd like to ask you all to read the document that follows this note. It
reviews Red Hat's intentions in initially announcing the Fedora
Foundation, and outlines the problems that have led us to the decision to
move in a different direction. It also discusses the plan that we are
implementing instead, and the steps that we are taking to ensure that the
Fedora Project continues to thrive and grow.

It is as complete, honest, and transparent as we can make it. If you feel
that there are places in which it lacks those qualities, call us on it,
and we will respond.

This document represents the work of many people both inside of Red Hat
and within the Fedora community. It is a long read, but a very worthwhile
one.

So take a look, read, digest, and share your thoughts. I look forward to
discussing this in great detail on email, and also with as many of you as
possible in person at LinuxWorld and at FUDCon over the next few days.
Many of Red Hat's most active Fedora folks will be at those two shows, so
please come and talk with us.

Sincerely,
Max Spevack

Last June, Red Hat announced its intention to launch the Fedora
Foundation. We've had a lot of smart people working hard to make this
Foundation happen, but in the end, it just didn't help to accomplish our
goals for Fedora. Instead, we are restructuring Fedora Project, with
dramatically increased leadership from within the Fedora community.

The next obvious question "Why no Foundation?" deserves a detailed
explanation.

WHY NO FOUNDATION?

When we announced the Foundation, it was with a very specific purpose, and
in a very specific context. The announcement was made by Mark Webbink,
who has been the intellectual property guru at Red Hat for a long time
now. His stated goal for the Foundation: to act as a repository for
patents that would protect the interests of the open source community.

Once we announced the intention to form a Foundation, people inside and
outside of Red Hat were interested in working beyond the stated purpose --
an intellectual property repository and instead saw this new Foundation
as a potential tool to solve all sorts of Fedora-related issues. Every
Fedora issue became a nail for the Foundation hammer, and the scope of the
Foundation quickly became too large for efficient progress.

A team moved forward to create the Foundation itself. We created the
legal entity, came up with some very basic and flexible bylaws, and
appointed a board to run it temporarily. This all happened pretty
quickly, because this was the easy part. We had articles of incorporation
in September 2005.

Then came the hard part: articulating the precise responsibilities of the
Foundation. This conversation took months, but ultimately it came back
around, again and again, to a single question: "What could a Fedora
Foundation accomplish that the Fedora Project, with strong community
leadership, could not accomplish?"

So here, in order, were the possible answers to that question -- and why
we found, in every single case, that the Fedora Foundation was not the
right answer.

ONE: The Fedora Foundation could be an entity for the development of an
open source patent commons.

This was the obvious starting place, and what we actually announced. One
of the lurking concerns of the open source community is the threat of
software patents. The Fedora Foundation could have been an ideal
repository for defensive patents. We envisioned soliciting patentable
ideas from businesses and/or individuals,

Re:Redhat kills the Fedora Foundation.

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck! Daldredge posts so much crap. Do you think you will get moderated up to +5 for this bullshit? Fuck, you are stupid. How come you didn't end your post with some bullshit about pickles, eh!?

Re:Redhat kills the Fedora Foundation.

[x2A]

Did you have a point?

Re:Redhat kills the Fedora Foundation.

[Anonymous Coward]

The only point DAldredge has is from the dunce cap he wears on his head.

Re:Redhat kills the Fedora Foundation.

[DAldredge]

Hey at least I gave you a reason to promote the store in your sig :)

Re:Redhat kills the Fedora Foundation.

[x2A]

A chance to; it's them that gives me the reason to ;-)

Re:Redhat kills the Fedora Foundation.

[davidsyes]

For some reason, my mind saw:

"Did you save a joint"...

hehehe

In other news

[Proof_of_death]

In the next version of RedHat, users without a DuoCore Intel processor will be unable to open more than 2 tabs in firefox due to their inferior hardware.

Re:In other news

[pembo13]

Hope you weren't trying to be funny.

Opps.

[DAldredge]

Thanks for the reminder!

I LIKE PICKLES!!!

Something Wicked this way Comes

[gamekeeper]

Is it me, or dooes something sound Verrrrrrrrry Messed up about the arrangement? Consider this, (if I am wrong I will stand corrected)
isn't microsoft like one of Intel's bigger if not the biggest partner? If this is the case, considering that a majority of the Intel Bauxes run Windows in some way/shape/oor form? With that being said, doesn't seem weird that Intel would be flirting with a MAJOR Competitor like RH?? Or just Linux in general be it Red hat, V/A, Gentoo, Etc.... This kinda smells like an SCO Snafu in some way.. If I were Microsopht, and I heard this news I would be Trippin! In some way, shape or form. But alas, All I can hear is an article about MS Pitchin a b(Bleep)(female dog)about People like Dell and others in the PC Business selling their machines without any OS, meaning Microsopht wont get Anything out of it, which is a concern to a company that is used to Domination of the specific industry in which it resides..
Either way, I am naught gunnnnna bore ya with more BS.. Just this one last parting comment..
THIS DOES NOT SEEM RIGHT,
From my limited perspective Something is gunna Go crazy Quick, and beleive me I can't see it benefitting the OpenSource movement if in fact I am correct, and something is gunna blow-up in someone's face..
Just a thought..
"No problems, Just Unique Solutions"

Re:Something Wicked this way Comes

[einhverfr]

I would think that IBM would be Intel's largest partner and also their largest competitor....

Microsoft is about the size of Intel. IBM, Dell, and others are quite a bit bigger.

Again, I am very confident that this deal will be to the good of the community. How could it not?

Re:Something Wicked this way Comes

[NerveGas]

It does seem odd at first glance, but look at the current CPU market: AMD is taking significant market share from Intel, and the lucrative part at that. When AMD released the Opteron, they cought Intel with their pants - and shorts - down, and Intel is still trying to come up with a viable response. They've been grasping around for anything to try and get numbers back up.

So... being a good bedfellow of Intel, Microsoft kindly delayed the release of a 64-bit OS for quite some time, until Intel had a 64-bit chip ready as well. The thinking was that without a OS that used the 64-bitness, extra registers, and had a scheduler that understood the complexities of obtaining maximum performance out of a NUMA architecture, the Opteron would surely turn out to be a flop. Right?

Wrong. They forgot about Linux. Linux could already support 64 bits, and IBM had poured some VERY significant NUMA experience and technology into Linux. Linux completely carried the Opteron sales for at least the first year. It might have been two, but I don't recall off of the top of my head.

So... here's Intel right now, trying desperately to find a way to at least stop the bleeding on the high-end server market. It's not far-fetched to think that they said "Hey... Linux carried the Opteron, and has worked against us. It's helped AMD and IBM, maybe we should jump on that train, too."

Of course, that attributes much more intelligence to Intel's decision-makers than they have hitherto demonstrated, but it's possible.

Skype

[da007]

" providing hard core data to make complex architectural decisions."

The "hard core data" is that if you use AMD with Red Hat then they're going to limit the number of TCP connections you can make.

I used to like AMD but recently...

[einhverfr]

Intel has been providing better reliability for the cost. I suspect a lot of it has to do with motherboards, etc. that are available in comparable systems within the same price brackets, but....

Anyway, I think that Intel seems more interested in commoditizing complimentary markets (software) in order to sell more hardware. And by participating more in the community they may get additional credibility with the FOSS advocates. They are doing more in this area than AMD (which is not entirely surprising given that they are so much larger). Additionally, if they can push FOSS with their resellers, they may find that they are able to help their resellers sell more units and be more successful.

Well done, Intel.

There are no large corps that do no evil

[einhverfr]

Sure, Intel has made their share of evil corporation moves, such as the Skype deal.

But I personally have every confidence in what Intel is doing here. They are quite simply trying to help their resellers push less costly systems so that they can get a larger chunk of the pie. It is a really good move really.

The real victims in this manuver are the proprietary software companies such as Microsoft. Certainly not the FOSS community which stands to benefit quite a bit.

The idea that Intel could be doing some things that are braindead and downright anticompetitive on one hand while pursuing a really enlightened business strategy on the other hand is pretty much par for the course with large corporations :-)

I can't actually think of any publically traded company that does no evil. Larger businesses need to have some sort of control over their markets in order to avoid loss. So a lot of bad things happen over that issue. For market leaders, I am sorry to say that this is always an issue.

The GPL may handicap gcc in this regard ...

[AHumbleOpinion]

If that were the case why haven't they donated their compiler backend to GCC? The Intel compiler for Linux is quite good (so I'm told) and since that's not a money maker for them you'd think they would make it part of GCC.

Intel may license patented optimization techniques. Such techniques would be unavailable to gcc.

Re:This is HUGE! Huge-Ass Merger?

[davidsyes]

If they get the urge to merge, will one of them be known as "RedTel"?

I thought IBM and RedHat had a thing going. Is IBM going to have a BM, now?

image work cometary