Slashdot Mirror
Intel on Linux
Baboshka writes "Check out what Intel has to say about Linux in the future and VA Research in the now in this informative article. Includes a short interview with Brian Biles, VP of VA. "
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
As has claimed by Nathan Cochrane in the most recent feature at Linux Today, we need Microsoft Office for Linux. As much as we hate MS, this would enable a huge amount of users to switch to Linux, and likewise it will be a great hinderance if not present. When Steve Jobs saved Apple, an important part of the deal was to commit MS to deliver Office for Mac.
logical volume manager
but that will be in Monteray on Merced
There's several VARs out there selling laptops with RedHat on it for not an aborbitant amount of money. Of course, laptops themselves are expensive...
This would be a bad thing. Those users would still be owned by M$. There has already been much progress in the area of office suites in the open source community and their is no need to include Microsoft. They are superflous.
Before I even tried linux I made sure my computer had no winmodems because of speed and instability with my high end games. Many gamers wont even look at a machine if it has any win hardware because of this. They also hate software soundcards that are now becoming popular with usb speakers. THis market makes sure that all OEM's offern regualr modems because alot of windoze users hate them. It will be like 30-50$ more for no winmodems but I know Dell will let you chose machines without them. Go to there web site and custom build a machine. I believe the linux machiens are only in workstations right now but they might offer them in pc's as well. Micheal dell loves linux and even sells more linux machines then VA. Also is it true that microsoft is really offering win-ethernets. YIKES!!
That would really hurt linux and I can picture Bill Gates smilling and gigling after reading the alt.linux.help newsgroups. Almost half of all of them are using winmodems and I have even seen a few curse linux because of lack of support for these. THis is exactly what Bill wants. Also bill is working to modify the bios so only windows can boot and all computers with the pc98 and even 99 will only boot windows and the new bios may be a tradsecret to help squash linux and solaris x86. IS THIS TRUE?
Isn't their a way in apache to tell its users that its IIS. I heard you can change the name of "apache" to "whatever you like". I heard a rumour that microsoft uses sun boxes with solaris and apache on most of its web servers but they changed the output name to "IIS" or something. IS this really true?
I am curious.
I prefer digital VMS on my alpha server at work. We tried linux just to test out performance and we all were dissapointed. We also used hardware raid and after that the performance was truely awefull. Linux is still at the heart of all the print servers but for now it is likely that it will stay there. What is EMS anyway? I hear dof Erp which equals Enterprise resource plan. Is that what you meant. I wouldn't mind putting it on linux but if I need it on my alpha then its going to have to be VMS.
I thought only skunkware was being offered and that merced is allready done but thanks to microsoft its not out yet. The first generation mercedes is allready obsolete. THe second generation one will be the first one comming out thanks to microsofts wonderfull NT for mercedes port. THe problem is sco is worse then NT in my experience and that was the only other option to sco was NT. YUCK! I thought that the sparcs have stuff like pixel rendering engiens in the cpu itself. Wouldn't mercedes be a hell of alot slower and harder to support because its not risc based but vlisc based.
SMP.
Yes, that's right, finally an OS that COULD theoretically take over the desktop that actually works with two processors. Intel would just hate to have normal users have a reason to buy two of their processors for their machine at home. Need more performance? Buy two more!
I love unix (linux included) but the original poster is 100% right on high end systems. A few high end unix die hards like Thompson and a few others critise linux due to its limitations compared to the big boys. I think linux will become another NT if its out too early and people expect too much of it and it fails. As a systems adminstrator I relise the physcological impact of expecting something really great and then have it fail vs expecting something mediocre and have it beat expectations. I thinks its a good thing that linux was unnheard of and ignored back years ago in 95 and 96 when linux began kicking sco's butt in but the result improved linnux drastically so by 1998 when the mainstream computing press heard of it by then it was allready quick ass and beat people peoples expectations at the low to midrange server area. Lets not do what the ms marketing department did and brag how our OS can do anything only to bring dissapointment when it doesn't support async i/o and advanced smp yet. The original story by intel was linux on 8-way servers and I can tell you that linux on an 8 way server is a mistake and even linus himslef admits after 4 cpu's, anything else after that is like throwing money at a dead horse.
I guess none of you have heard of xml as a default standard for saving data. Xml is designed to be open and office 2000 is going to support. Finally you can read data no matter which platform its used. Even if its a proprieatry version you can still see how it works like opensource. Also I hate ms office more then windows because Office has caused more headaches then windows for me. I refuse to pay 900$ to 1100$ for the next version of OFfice 2000 prefessional which is the actual price rumoured by microsoft. Office is microsofts true monopoly. I hate people sending me .doc files and office is the main reason why unix almost lost the workstation market because NT workstations can run powerpoint and word and excell while unix systems cannot. I remember a speech I attended where Bill said that 65% of all engineers have 2 computers. One for cad and one for work. The other 35% use autocad for windows. Autocad supports vba and activex so most engineers would rather quite then to switch to linux unless autocad is proted as well. My point is ms office is microsofts true monopoly and we would never see the light of day if ms office is everywhere I would be stuck on a constant upgrade cycle that I ma trying to leave.
One of your goals, 3d acceleration, is being impeded by Intel, who refuses to give out the specifications so people can write an AGP interface.
Open an XML doc in a text editor. See how it looks like cumbersome basterdised HTML? What this means is that eaven if MS's implimentation of XML is seriusly broken a perfect filter can be writen.
Basicaly it wold be like if the *.doc format was properly documented.
I thought that linux even though simplier and smaller is very tightly coded and can compete in benchmarks with NT that had async i/o and when linux would finally have this then it would totally kick butt. IF this was true then why isn't there benchmarks showing this. I can imagine a huge performance increase with databases and heavy webserving on more then 4 cpu's. Async i/o is whats killing linux in benchmarks with multiple cpu's and adapters because NT can use i/o's really well on all cpu's with multiple network adapters while linux with sync i/o would drop packets left and right and take up the i/o on the computer and degrade performance. If 2.2 really supports Async i/o then I will definetly cancel my NT upgrade plans from os/2 and put linux instead. These fud benchmarks are really bad because the 20% of the IT pro's who critise them are considered extremist, who hate the truth by the other 80% of IT pro's and MIS guys. ITs true. My boss still thinks windows 3.1 was the way to go instead of OS/2. I finally convinced him after I was on vacation and the NT server went down and he had to fix it himself he then relised how poorly the OS was written.
SGI *sigh*
Yes, Linux supports up to 16, but Intel hardware doesn't support more than 4 CPUs yet. The tests with 16 CPUs has been on Sparc's
...until I can buy it pre-installed on low-priced laptops. ($5K VA Research machines are out of the reach of many). And while Linux does run just fine with X on many sub $2K laptops, these machines tend to have built-in winmodems, win-ethernet ports, and on some Compaqs, wierd proprietary CD-ROM drives (that don't behave like ATAPI standard CDROMS), all of these being Linux hostile. While I can stick in some PCMCIA modems and network cards, I want to be able to use the built-in stuff and have free slots for other stuff, consarnit! WinHardware is a machination of purest aevil!
Lets get one thing straight. I am not anti-linux but the latest fud does prove one thing that is very true of linux. The recent fud is 100% truth when it comes to raid, scsi and multiple etherent adapters. Just look at mindcrafts and NT magazines and now zdnet results. There are 2 articles now pointing to performance problems with linux's sync. i/o.
Problems:
1:) Linux has alot of trouble with raid because of its i/o and hardware raid can kill performance but software raid is better.
2:)Linux has trouble with smp because it doesnt support async i/o and non reepmtive cpu points. THis would bring intels 8-way cpu server to its knees and if NT was stable enough it might even outperform linux because even NT supports async i/o. I think solaris x86 would be much more preferable.
3:)The scsi module in linux has some performance and stability proeblems because 95% of all linux developers use eide because they are hobbyist and dont have the money for expensive scsi and raid controller cards.
Linux is a killer workstation and low end unix server and a ok mid-range server but if all these busssiness put mission critical stuff on them and have awefull performance and maybe some instability then solaris will seem a whole lot more viable. Remember what happened to NT after coporations believed Jess Berst form zdnet and microsoft. Texas instruments and Motorola switched form unix to NT only to switch back again and they regret ever wasting time and money on NT. Linux will have a similiar fate if its used on mission critical systems. Also if you need a high end system like a 8-way server, then its advisable to go risc with alpha or a sun box with solaris or digital vms. If yuour 2-way alpha box can perform the same as an 8-way intel box, then dunp solaris and use linux on the alpha but adding more scpu's puts stress in the i/o which is a little fragile in linux right now. Other then that linux rocks but lets hope these mindcraft and zdnet fud will help bring light and hope to linux by fixing problems and they might actually improve linux and help bring linux out of stuff where it doesn't beling (yet....).
I would trust solaris or vms alot more with an EMS app then linux right now.
Instead of just talkin smack they should commit to using linux as the reference platform for all of their newest technologies. Then by going GPL with all of their latest and grestest "enterprise" hardware designs Linux could match any other OS out there in terms of features within a year.
All I'm saying is that everyone (meaning all of the big money vendors) are looking to linux to shore up margins and keep some of the money they are sending to redmond. Yet you aren't going to see compaq developing drivers for linux.
There is no reason for Intel not to help develop Linux support for evey device they build. From nic's to motherboards.
Everyone should be asking Intel:
Where is the Linux i2o implementation?
You guys invented USB, why do we have to reinvent the wheel? How bout throwing that in the pot?
Where is the VIA implementation?
If you actually want anyone to care about MMX why not patch it into the kernel to demonstrate how powerful it could be?
Standard device drivers among all intel based unices? Why not develop it, then anounnce it, and give away some code?
They released the source to their video chipset which is a good start. But we all know that they have to write drivers for their own purposes internally, how bout making linux the standard reference platform and making that software public when the device ships? Even if the code is in rough shape the free *nix communities would be more than capable of polishing it up.
Hardware vendors need to realize that using a common code base for all of their products (from printers to servers) will shorten their development cycles if they will just work with the public.
For one, Linux 2.2 w/ glibc 2.1 DOES support async I/O (redhat 6.0 and caldera 2.2 have it, the new suse might).
And what is a "non preemptive cpu point"?
It supports async I/O (BSD-style), but I don't know of any apps that support it yet so don't hold your breath.
So a technology that has been around for 20 years will take another 20 to get rid of, right? Hmm... NT has only been around for 5 years or so. :}
Hand me that airplane glue and I'll tell you another story.
This is great. Now what we need is for more commercial apps and more Hardware support.
Here's My Wish List:
-Quicken Deluxe and Maybe Turbo-Tax.
-Hardware Accelerated 3D. (Open Source Drivers would be very nice)
-Media Creation tools and Viewers (BeOS users Need not comment on this one.)
-Quake 3 (already granted, I know (thanks John!!!
-More Kick-ass Games like Civilization CTP
-Bell Atlantic to offer ADSL in Queens NY. (I'm getting very Impatient...)
-Corel Office 2000 for Linux.
There's more but I'm sleepy now so I can't think....
Do not read this
I thought the SMP support was for up to sixteen processors. Who is the one who is misinformed here?
Sanity.html - Error 404 not found
Right, but they did not say that RH 6.0 supports only four processors, they said "at least".
One word: Merced.
The Intel/HP contingent has poured a nice chunk of change into the IA-64 chip. Now, what would you do if you were Intel right now, hhmmm?
Here you are. The amount of money you dumped into the chip is bigger than the gross national product of most third world nations. You are several months from shipping it. And now you ask yourself, who's going to use it?
Microsoft? Windows? HAHAHAHAHAHA. Microsoft's too busy getting their crap together with W2K. I don't remember ever hearing when MS intends to add support for the IA-64 chip in their OS. If ever.
Meanwhile, you keep reading that Linux will have IA-64 support right out of the box, for the chip. I recall that either VA Linux or Red Hat (or both) are working on porting the kernel to the 64 bit chip.
Right now, it looks like Linux would be the only OS that can actually support the 64 bit architecture of the Merced chip. I may be wrong, I don't read the trade press much, but for the life of me, I can't think of anything else other than Linux that has announced actual Merced support for the chip, when it ships.
Looks to me like Intel's putting all of its eggs in the Torvalds basket. Linux stands to be the only thing that can actually sell Merced chips for Intel.
Interesting that they say on the page linked to by Intel Serves Up UNIX that the first version of UDI will be released Q2 99 with Linux as the reference platform. It's been a while since I heard anything significant about UDI. And the Q2 is almost half way over...
the nicest thing about linux is that anytime anyone criticizes Linux the Linux communtiy retaliates by improving the system or showing that they are wrong. It is nice to see a major playor stating that Linux will have a place in the future, and also to point out some of the strengths of Linux. This shows that Linux keeps improving. We can only get better when we know where our weakness are!
Only 'flamers' flame!
Actually, MS does have its uses.
Personally, I'm the sort that things all operating systems should be opensource. But, IMO, if your not making a OS, then go ahead with whatever you want. So what i'm saying is that i would love to see windows but utterly destroyed (I know, i'm not holding my breath), but MS can continue making apps, and thats fine by me.
Companies should be limited to what they can do, make an closed source OS? no apps (this means you Microsoft). making hardware? Hell no (This means you Apple). When i say Opensource i mean 100% opensource, i mean like BSD or Linux. None of this ASPL darwin crap.
"Computers will never truly be free until the last windows user is strangled with the entrails of the last mac user."
www.intel.com runs Microsoft-IIS/4.0 according to Netcraft.
(insert smart-ass comment here)
Glückwünsche, haben Sie Slashdot ermordet, indem Sie zum korporativen Druck beugten und Subskriptionen einlei
...but remember that a year ago you had to look hard to find Linux anywhere but on a geek's desktop. Now people are busily pointing out that better high-end solutions can still be found, provided that you are willing to wheel out a truckload of cash.
I hardly see that as a failure for Linux. What shortcomings will people be able to point to in another year or two?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
What you mean like M$ supports DHTML, JavaScript, Java, CSS and all those other open standards?
Finally you can read data no matter which platform its used
You mean kind of like M$ Java?
I know Office 200 is supposed to do XML and I know how XML is supposed to be the ultimate answer to cross platform apps, but judging on M$ pervious record with open standards I'm not too optimistic. I just know they will find a way to break it in an unfixable way. Let's face it M$ has never shown any interest to support a cross platform anything, so why are they going to start now?
you mean intel? they we up, running, and serving fast. Anyone bother to check yet to see what platform their servers are running?
I finally had to change my settings to "-1" to see ANY "Linux isn't the end all be all" comments. C'mon moderators, try to be at least a little objective. If you ignore your faults they will only grow, then one day you'll turn around and see a Grand Canyon.
"News for Nerds, stuff that Matters" != Linux is the best thing ever.(period)
Before you flame think....games!
(my attempt at moderation without actual jurisdiction)
+&x
And we push closer and closer to mainstream!
Hell, we may be getting there now!
World Domination...
It's a thankless job, but I've got a lot of Karma to burn off
Basicaly it wold be like if the *.doc format was properly documented.
Hmm... I'm getting a bit tired of seeing this line trotted out all the time. The Microsoft Office file formats (for at least Word and Excel) _are_ documented; the documentation is available in certain MS Press books; you may even be able to download it from msdn.microsoft.com.
The issue which makes these file formats so difficult to replicate on other platforms is the concept of object linking and embedding. When you insert a foreign object into a Word document, that object is stored as a binary OLE link in the Word file. The foreign object's parent application is used to edit the embedded object. This binary OLE representation makes the binary Office formats necessary.
I think Office 2000's Export to XML feature (note "feature" - Office 2000 _does not_ save as XML by default, it continues to use Office 97 binary formats [with the exception of Access 2000]) is great - but I don't see how they're going to be able to include these binary OLE objects in an XML document. Until that's done, I don't see how XML can be a true 100% compatible replacement for binary Office file formats.
Cheers
Alastair
-- "I believe the human being and the fish can coexist peacefully." - George W. Bush, 29 September 2000
And if the constructor such as Dell or Gateway, tries to put anything else, well MS will tell them that they won't give them the right to install W95
This was particulary true two years ago, when Linux and wasn't so famous. And also when Microsoft wasn't yet confronted to justice
Another issue is the quality of their software: excuse me, but Word sucks because it's awfully too heavy for the system
Well that's all I have to say
A duck's quack does not echo and no one knows why
Well, I think it a good introduction to Linux from an entreprise point of view although I think it may be too short.
I think the conclusion is quite realistic : 20 years to get rid of Microsoft ;-)
Overall it gives to Linux what it deserves right now: a very good alternative
A duck's quack does not echo and no one knows why
Why not push Linux where it can make a huge impact like Workstation class systems? I'm not talking about over glorified desktops, but real workstation systems. Intel finally has a workstation class processor in the Xeon series of processors, and I've been running Linux on one for a while now. It honestly is the closed thing to a SPARCworkstation Intel has come out with. Lot of Universities and companies could replace their older workstations with new Xeon based Linux systems easily.
Ohwell, Server market is good, but I think Linux could make better in roads into the Workstation market.