Slashdot Mirror


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

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

29 of 434 comments (clear)

  1. They've got it backwards. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

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

    1. Re:They've got it backwards. by jawtheshark · · Score: 5, Funny

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

      --
      Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
    2. Re:They've got it backwards. by Dyinobal · · Score: 4, Funny

      The original comment made me think of Linux powered Velociraptors.

    3. Re:They've got it backwards. by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 4, Funny

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

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    4. Re:They've got it backwards. by JustOK · · Score: 5, Funny

      Imagine a Beowulf cluster of them.

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    5. Re:They've got it backwards. by Noryungi · · Score: 4, Funny

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

      --
      The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
    6. Re:They've got it backwards. by MikeBabcock · · Score: 5, Funny

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

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    7. Re:They've got it backwards. by Noryungi · · Score: 4, Funny

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

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

      --
      The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
    8. Re:They've got it backwards. by unitron · · Score: 4, Funny

      But how can you be sure?

      There's only one way.

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

  2. Qui Bono? by Simon+Brooke · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    --
    I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
    1. Re:Qui Bono? by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

  3. Re:antitrust issues? by macromorgan · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

  4. Really, Linux won't (currently) support CT by Jahava · · Score: 5, Informative

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

    FTFA:

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

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

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

    1. Re:Really, Linux won't (currently) support CT by pmontra · · Score: 4, Interesting

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

    2. Re:Really, Linux won't (currently) support CT by Truekaiser · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

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

    3. Re:Really, Linux won't (currently) support CT by crazyjj · · Score: 4, Funny

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

      Sir, I demand you surrender your Slashdot membership card!

      --
      What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
    4. Re:Really, Linux won't (currently) support CT by unixisc · · Score: 4, Interesting

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

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

  5. Re:antitrust issues? by WarmBoota · · Score: 4, Interesting

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

    --
    90% of everything is crap. Also, crap is relative.
  6. Re:antitrust issues? by UnknowingFool · · Score: 4, Informative

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

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  7. Re:antitrust issues? by Errol+backfiring · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    --
    Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
  8. Intel and Microsoft teaming up to herd the masses by FriendlyLurker · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

  9. Sounds like BS by JDG1980 · · Score: 5, Interesting

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

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

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

  10. Re:antitrust issues? by postbigbang · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Let's say the reason is either one.

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

    Do.We.Care?

    --
    ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
  11. Re:antitrust issues? by sjames · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    Apparently Wintel is alive and well.

  12. Re:Anything can run linux by Bill+Dimm · · Score: 4, Insightful

    All intel has done now is simply issued a challenge...

    Well, that's not all they've done. They've also pissed away a lot of karma with the Linux community.

  13. Re:antitrust issues? by Khyber · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "There aren't any antitrust issues here."

    Bullshit, Intel is falsely advertising that a chip with all the standard (for today) x86 instructions will not run Linux, which is an x86 compatible kernel, and says that the chip is for Windows 8. Intel is colluding with Microsoft in this instance to create an anticompetitive market.

    FALSE ADVERTISING IS STILL ILLEGAL AND AN ANTITRUST ISSUE WHEN A CONVICTED MONOPOLIST IS INVOLVED.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  14. Re:smart ploy! by retep · · Score: 4, Informative

    They tried writing drivers themselves and again they sucked.

    Dead wrong. Intel drivers are excellent and I and many others have had great success with them. They also usually work quite closely with the kernel community as a whole to make sure things work as expected; that's why what this article is saying seems to out of character for Intel. For instance, try searching for "intel.com" in the git commit log. Lots of kernel developers are on Intel's payroll, including core people like Alan Cox.

  15. Re:antitrust issues? by NatasRevol · · Score: 5, Informative

    No, that's not what TFA says:

    "The firm said the operating system needs to provide "hints" to the processor in order to make use of power states and it seems likely that such hints are presently not provided by the Linux kernel in order to properly make use of Clover Trail."

    I doubt this will be very difficult for Linux to put into the kernel.

    --
    There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
  16. Re:antitrust issues? by arth1 · · Score: 4, Funny

    I think I could count on one hand the number of Windows 8 users worldwide and I think that 7 of them are bored with it.

    My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die.