Slashdot Mirror
Intel Invests in TurboLinux
OUSpirit writes "I saw this over at Netscape's Technews site. Evidently, Intel (and some other companies) just invested some major bucks in TurboLinux to put them on more equal footing with RedHat. They plan to use the money to expand management and development staff.
"
This is a step in the right direction, although I would have rather seen the money go to the Debian project, but oh well...
My big question about this deal is why does intel care? I look over the press release on intel's site, the article that was /.ed and the interview on news.com, no where is there mention about the motivation of Intel. Will Intel finaly take the gloves of with M$ and show them that the world does not revolve around Redmond? God I hope so....
....is it possible that the big players could direct some cash towards the general linux good, such askernal/driver development, the gnome/kde projects, and the like? (OK, I realize gnome is from rh, but...)
This way, the entire linux community can benefit. Right now, all I'm seeing is cash going to the big corporate players, and some of the less big, such as in the case, TurboLinux.
Is it me, or is it just that the corporates are buying into more corporate culture because they just don't understand the whole Linux philosophy?
Hrm... my thoughts for the day.
You'll eat it and you'll like it.
There seems to be a notion that they go head to head with Red Hat, but what have TurboLinux got to offer over Red Hat. If SUSE is supposed to be aimed at the europian market, Debian at the purist, where do Turbo Linux go?
I suppose that money for linux can only help beat our evil adversary and their mountains of propaganda. I do not, however like their idea of selling their "new software for managing large amounts of systems" as proprietery. $2000 for unlimited?!? Redhat and many others are very good for sticking close to open source. I only hope that this new software does not sell good. Maybe they'll do 'that open source thang' then.
--David
These are not my pants. --Reese Roper
What else would you expect out of Intel?
There's rampant worry about the ability of MS to
produce a working 64-bit windows, and while the
IA32 has served intell well for some time, the
wave of the future is 64 bit. The best way to
ensure the availability of working OSes is to
fund their production.
Plus, there's that all-your-eggs-in-one-basket
thing.
- Reason #1: They don't have a stranglehold on the market
- Reason #2: Most of their employees aren't millionares
Anyone want to add a few more?-----------------------------------------------
my blog: good times, man, good times
They say they want to add proprietary software into their distro. I don't know if I like the sound of that. I guess it really depends how they do it, but in theory they can create a distro that's dysfunctional without a couple of proprietary components of theirs, and then say "well, sure, you can download all the GPL'd stuff from our site - it just won't work."
It's more likely that they're refering to adding stuff like word perfect. In that case it's ok, redhat does the same, but redhat's commitment to GPL the stuff they write makes me a lot more comfortable.
God does not play dice - Einstein
Not only does God play dice, he sometimes throws them where they
Well, it seems obvious to me. They want to promote competition in the Linux market so that it will become even better than what it currently is. This will aid in having more machines with Linux, which means more processors...
Of course, I would have to look into whether or not more Linux = more machines than are currently being sold or if more Linux = less market share for other OSes which means same amount of new processors..
Ah, wait! What if it means that OEMs can spend less on the software and MORE on the machine! That would make Intel quite happy!!
Hmmmm....... I'm still thinking about this one.
Didn't Intel a make a major investment in RedHat in the not-so-distant past? (About a year ago IIRC) Now that they've invested in TurboLinux as well, I wonder if they think Linux may eventually be a desktop contender? These investments are what will make it happen.
Anyway, the more the merrier I think. Competition between big Linux distributions can only make the distributions better, which will in turn make Linux better, and more accessable to the masses. Many of the companies also contribute developers full time to Open Source projects as well, which is a really good thing,because most people can't afford to quit their day jobs to write free code, as much as they'd like to.
My main question is this:
Out of all of the linux distributions, why TurboLinux?
Now, I've never used TL and I don't know anyone that does so I can't judge its value as a distribution, but I don't understand why intel picked them over say Mandrake? However it's good that one of the less published distributions is getting attention.
Perhaps Intel is just trying to grab more headlines by throwing their corporate weight around?
Zach
Crap a segfault
This could actually be a major test of the commercial viability of open-source. There are a number of Linux distributions out there, a number of them moneymaking ventures to one extent or another, but Red Hat has been, until now, the only company to really build a business model on a corporate scale around Linux. If this investement really grows Turbo Linux into a full-scale, commercial Linux corporation, this will be a chance to observe two large-scale corporations competing to sell Linux as their core product in the same market (N. America).
The OSS naysayers have been insisting that a company cannot survive in a competitive market space by giving away their core product, and all of their R&D. This is exactly what Red Hat has been doing, and hopefully Turbo Linux will follow suit. Will they chicken out and go proprietary (with non-OSS add-ons and such)? Will one of them crush the other? Or can they really both prosper? Only time will tell. The future of corporate open-source could be at stake.
This is a smart move on Intel's part. They've been not-so-subtly tugging at Microsoft's leash, and this investment has the potential to drive up Linux's acceptance (nothing like a little competition to make Red Hat and Turbo work hard for customers). Furthermore, it gives Intel a chance to test the strength of the OSS model, and see whether they can count on it to rescue them from their death-embrace with MS.
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" -Salvor Hardin
The main thing that I pulled from this article is that Intel wants to sell Linux, but with some proprietary software on it. What will this lead to? Many different distributions, all with different commands, different functionality, different user interfaces?
I really don't want to go around naysaying and predicting the fall of Linux, but I think the last thing Linux needs is the kind of fracturing within itself that is similar to what happened to UNIX. With so many distributions, some proprietary, some not, it's going to start to confuse and frustrate consumers. "I have Linux at home, but when I use it at work it has none of the things I usually use at home."
The solution? I don't know. Try to keep up with Intel features in open source? That may be difficult, and not feasible when other compnies do this. Suggestions?
Or maybe it all means nothing. JALD.
-no broken link
However, what I'd really like to see Intel do is to put some of their engineering resources into developing better compilers (or at least, x86 optimizations). Not only would this help every free operating system, and anything else compiled using GCC, but it would also make Intel's processors "seem" faster in benchmarks.
I think the egcs/gcc developers have been doing a wonderful job, but I'm sure there are Intel engineers who have a better understanding of X86 optimizations.
99 little bugs in the code, 99 bugs in the code,
fix one bug, compile it again...
I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar.
Gnome was founded by (and continues to be driven by) Miguel de Icaza, who works for a university in Mexico, not Red Hat. Red Hat has contributed a LOT to Gnome, but that doesn't mean it's "from" Red Hat.
I mean, no one says that the kernel is "from Red Hat" even though they actually DO pay Alan Cox to work on the kernel.
Now, to start off, I am NOT one of the "Red Hat is the Microsoft of Linux" people.
Ok, having said that, I'm guessing that Intel is fed up with a monopoly over the current OS of choice for their processors, and wants to make sure that it doesn't happen again.
So, despite the anti-monopolistic protections that the GPL provides, they may feel that it makes sense to have SEVERAL strong Linux distributions rather than just one. That way they won't be tied to one OS vendor the way they have been in the past.
I agree, their bit about adding proprietary software is cause for concern. If it's just stuff like Word Perfect, etc. then OK I guess.
Let's hope that TurboLinux doesn't try to re-proprietize stuff, and if they do, that RedHat, Debian et.al. grab more marketshare. What else can one say?
Excellent. Maybe this will help curb the "Redhat is going to take over the market and become the next Microsoft!!!!" hysteria amongst the slashdot readership. It's also a somewhat unusual move - maybe Intel is hedging it's bets. Kinda agrees with the idea that Redhat != Linux. Or maybe Intel believes that different distributions have different customers, and want to appeal to the broadest possible market.
--
that Intel will supplant Microsoft as the most feared monopoly in 5 years? Intel is making sure that x86 is alive and kicking regardless of whether Microsoft is the king. Microsoft better start kissing Intel's ass soon or they'll become the next decade's version of IBM in the 80's -- a displaced goliath
Plenty of examples in the health care industry. The for-profit has to donate the equivalent monetary value to another c3. Sort of like replacement wetlands when a factory is built on swampland.
I don't think the supporters of Debian would go for it, though.
And it would make no more financial sense than buying Netscape for billions. The only intellectual property good for a profit making company is that which is guarded under trade secret policies. No trade secrets at Netscape or Debian.
Security holes in Linux are always a hot topic, they're always having to fix something.
When do you hear of security problems in MS products?
See, we can spend our time improving and adding the features you want. They other guys have to spend their time repairing things that should have been done right the first time.
I guess that's another distro we can count on to be broken on AMD chips. . .
(in case you didn't recognize the wily disguise, this was sarcasm)
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Its not a case of 'not getting it', more a case of putting money where it is safest. Its hard to say what Debian is, so the $$$ stays away.
You cant have it both ways.
A good guess as to why Intel is investing in linux can be seen in the painful extension of the x86 architecture long after it should have died a quiet death. Really, folks, it's 20 years old, and there are far better ways to do things (witness Power PC vs x86 benchmarks) than to keep compatibility with the same old opcodes.
The _only_ reason that x86 survives is backward compatibility with *DOS*. With Linux, and other OSes like it, it's much *easier* to port the old OS to the new processor than it is to build a processor that is backward compatible. Note that Linux _already_ runs in the Merced simulator (or whatever they're calling it these days) and Win2k *doesnt*.
Micro~1 has had a vested interest in bullying Intel into keeping the x86 architecture, since they're experts at writing assembler and not at writing portable operating systems. However, Linux presents a way out of this trap, and _that_ is why Intel likes Linux.
Is it me, or is it just that the corporates are buying into more corporate culture because they just don't understand the whole Linux philosophy?
Is it necessary for the large corporations to buy into the Linux Philosophy, for everyone to benefit? The way the GPL is worded, any contributions that these corporations make benefit all of us, regardless of their profit motive.
Unfortunately, it seems that for Linux to penetrate further into the market, Corporations are going to have to be involved in some capacity, either by creating non-GPL'ed software packages, or by funding GPL'd Distro's.
Personally, I'd rather see them funding GPL'd distro's than creating scads of new neat software that I can't afford to buy. Not that I'm against commercial software, I just can't afford to buy much of it now.
The Linux Philosophy was a great starting point, but in the end, it is just a philosophy. Any system that can't an influx of ideas new to them (ie Profits) will surely stagnate and atrophy.
by Mike Buddha -- Someday the mountain might get him, but the law never will.
1) Intel doesn't want to deal with a monopoly --
dealing with Microsoft has meant that MS had
the ability to force Intel to do almost anything
MS wants...
2) Intel wants to corrupt the opensource
revolution to make it easier for companies to
make profits from selling software. Intel's doing
this both on behalf of its business partners as
well as itself
3) Redhat is committed to crossplatform support.
Intel stands a better chance of making dominant
the platforms they choose from a company they
raise to greatness themself. This is especially
helpful when they can make unavailable software
for other platforms, especially by weakening the
open source movement while helping the linux
movement.
For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
I just wanted to throw in my (lame) $.02, that being that TurboLinux is cool ;)
I used Debian for a long time, but with recent releases it's gotten to a point of inexcusable bloat yadda yadda yadda. So I went shopping for a new distro and eventually decided on TL. So far, I've been very pleased. It's much faster than generic i486-compiled distros (of which there are fewer every day...), has a great installer by my standards, has timely updates (XF86 3.3.5, for instance), and just generally feels good.
Hopefully, this new influx of investor's money will make TL even better!
MoNsTeR
2. Remember Microsoft was started by some bright eyed college students in their dorn room.
3. If we are too busy competeing with ourselves how can we compete with other OS's?
4. It used to be the enemy of my enemy is my friend....I wonder who our friends will be 6 months from now...
People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them
..that it's not doing the same for the "yeah, more firepower to crush the Evil Empire with!!!!" madness amongst the Slashdot readership. Perhaps it would be best to judge each distro and think about how you (in the broad sense) feel about their popularity (or lack thereof) based on their particular merits, and not based on how likely they are to help topple Microsoft? After all, you should support something you like, not just anything that isn't MS.. Or else you might as well support an OS that's been around a while, like MacOS, and forget all about these silly "Linux", "BSD", and "BeOS" thingies..
At any rate, I think it would be funny if Intel suddenly lost its mind (ok, that's subject to debate, especially in light of the recent rechristening of the "Merced" chip.. ugh) and invested heavily in every distro maker.. only to see most of the distros get sucked under.. along with their money. ;)
~ Kish
interesting chain of events..
./configure;make all. Is Intel trying to destroy the hardware independance of Linux by promoting things which will tether it to a limited number of processors? Is the shadowy and much-feared Covert Ops arm of Intel planning on replacing the Turbolinux management with evil androids which will slavishly refuse to support any non-intel microchips well?
1.IBM comes to dominate the computer world.
2.Microsoft works itself into a position where people buying IBM products are heavily directed toward Microsoft DOS.
3.Microsoft works itself into a position where it is independant of IBM.
4.Microsoft comes to dominate the computer world.
5.IBM ceases to be of any importance and collapses in a mess of antitrust lawsuits. It never really goes back into the consumer market.
6.Intel works itself into a position where people buying Microsoft products are heavily directed toward the x86 architecture.
((YOU ARE HERE))
7.Intel works itself into a position where it is independant of Microsoft
Do you see a pattern? Can you guess step 8? Of course, this is probably looking at things the wrong way, and exaggerating things a lot, and assuming that Intel really can work itself into a position where when microsoft falls Intel won't come crashing down with it (which is not _that_ likely). But still, it's awful suspicious.
If i wanted to be even MORE paranoid, i'd refer to the other postings here stating that TurboLinux is thinking about putting propeitary stuff in their distro; the way i look at it, that sounds an awful lot like closed-source and-- as a result-- not quite as hardware-independant, since mr. end user can't just
Who knows? Certainly not me. But the truth is out there. The truth is out there..
[if you wish, you may insert in this space a random and uninformed flamebait about integrating support for PPC and Alpha machines into the main linux kernel tree]
-mcc-baka
(this post was originally written with Mozilla M10 for macintosh. Its form support lacks many things, for instance full support for the left arrow key. After clicking "preview" i discovered that Mozilla M10 randomly deletes about half of what you put into any form you try to send. I had to retype it in a more finished browser. Hey; it's beta.)
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
You pathetic bastard, go mumble to yourself on AOL.
Where are my GPFs? I WANT MY GPFS!!
Linuxers should be happy that INTEL is betting its
money on Linux at all. Spreading their bets,
supporting Turbo-Linux and digging into the
Asian market seems to be even better for the
prosperity of Linux, than throwing even more
money at Redhat (they should have enough monetary
ammunition for the next months to cover their
expenses after their IPO).
But what about that GPL problems?
As another poster had said, the Turbo-Linux people
have argued that this is only a beta release and
that they'll provide source code for the official
code.
Things would look IMHO more friendly, if source
code would be available at all times. Making it
available for FTP download should do the trick.
OK we'll see.
Other posters had concerns that Turbo-Linux could
dominate the Asian market with a partially closed
source distribution.
But don't forget that a partially proprietary
distribution has some handicaps because they won't
get feed back like bug fixes or user contributions
for their proprietary parts. They would be on
their own.
And don't underestimate the intelligence and
responsiveness of Chinese hackers. They might
be pretty fast to compose and deliver an Asian
Linux Distro which conforms to the GPL. This even
faster if the others should sell for a
'proprietary' high price.
My experience was that TurboLinux, ran by Scott someone, took the Redhat install and RPMs, slightly tweaked it, and distributed it as their own.
Eventually, I ended up installing the newer (and *fixed* redhat rpms), after languishing waiting for updates from these guys.
Has it changed since then? What does TurboLinux offer that Debian or Redhat doesn't?
I'd think Database applications are one of the weakest areas of Open Source Software.
According to Alphalinux Online (www.alphalinux.org) TurboLinux was working on an alpha port, which always struck me as somewhat odd, seeing as their site goes on about how optimized the distribution is for the intel pentiums and all that. I hope they do keep thier alpha development though, because us in the alphalinux world, running 64 bit right now instead of waiting for Merced or whatever lame name Intel has for it now, could always use more choice to make the distros better and better. Works the same as the 32bit world, just quicker :)
Reason 5 - Linux uses an antiquated command line interface where users have to type "commands" rather than having a GUI where users can point and click.
Reason 6 - Linux is too confusing to use because there are too many GUI's. Why would a user want to learn how to use both GNOME and KDE when they could just learn Windows?
-----
Free P2P Backup, Windows & Linux
Ok, I don't want to say this is an end game for RedHat. But it does partially confirm my feelings about the viability of commercial OSS development. First Mandrakes sales, now Turbo Linux is moving in....
The gist of the problem is: the company which spends millions of dollars on R&D does not necessarily have a better product than its competitors. You have to ask yourself, is it worth it to spend 10 million dollars developing a GUI that your competitors will copy byte for byte? You simply can't differentiate yourself based on your product itself. Futhermore, the competitors can copy your work byte for byte, and add in a few nominal contributions at the 11th hour making their product nominally better, not to mention cheaper.
I'm sure plenty of geeks will say "but RedHat is building up a reputation". While this may be partially true, the geeks are only sliver of the real market. Furthermore, many of these geeks aren't buying Redhat. They're downloading it.
I really do want to see RedHat succeed. But I have my doubts. I don't believe that this business model is anywhere near proven. The fact is that for all the "support" arguments, RedHat's profits aren't coming from support (yet). They're coming from what I'd term 'convenience sales'. That is, they're making profits by SELLING their product based on the fact that its a bit easier to install and document. For this reason, I have serious doubts about RedHat being able to grasp MS's market share. They've enjoyed relative obscurity. While would-be clones (byte for byte) can't garner enough attention to pick away at RedHat's sales profitably.
Essentially all RedHat has is a trademark, or a series of trademarks. Many people think this is enough, and they frequently point to Pepsi and Coca-Cola. In my opinion, these are entirely different. The different colas enjoy unique formulas. While they may, in reality, taste the same, many people would argue differently. Neither of them can, nor would they, claim that they are the exact same formula. The same can not be said for GPL software. Your competitors can make an exact copy of all your work. They can also pile software on, and still allow the customers exact same software.
1: Intel likes Linux: Meaning they want to see it thrive.
2: Intel wants to keep AMD et al out: Meaning their investments will make distros optimize for Intel (maybe only...) keeping AMD especially in a hard place.
3: Intel wants independency: Intel sees linux as the next top OS, wants to be sure they're not locked into Microsoft.
4: Intel likes throwing money at people who look neat: Hey, not such a far feched idea.
Eitherway I think it is good business practice... though AMD might think differently.
--onyx--
You speak as though the battle were already over, which is far from the case. My point was exactly that this is a test, to see if your doubts are justified or not, and it's far too early to tell. I don't really have the energy to respond to your criticisms, but I'd reccomend any or all of Eric Raymond's papers, particularly The Magic Cauldron, as to why Red Hat's business model may be commercially viable.
I will say (beacuse Raymond doesn't directly address it) is that Red Hat is, to a large extent, buying goodwill. They have contributed a lot to the OSS community, in a variety of ways, and as a direct result, I think of them first when I think about buying Linux (same reason my next computer is going to be a VA box). An awful lot of Linux types think in precisely this way. This effect could be offset by a truly substantial, worthwhile proprietary offering from Turbo, but even then the ickiness of proprietary software (and its attendant disadvantages) could offset that to some extent. And if all the geeks use Red Hat at home, when they go to work they're going to want to use systems they're familiar with, and will push for Red Hat at work.
Think about what Turbo is saying. "OSS is a great development model, which produces the best-quality software available. That's why we think you should buy Linux. We also think that doesn't apply to us, so buy our Linux because its proprietary software is better than the OSS alternatives." Who would buy that message?
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" -Salvor Hardin
Does anyone remember the child next door? I saw him the other day beating his new dog with a wratchet. You know, I still wish I would've learned breakdancing when it was in. I mean, how often in life can one expect the 'permanent press' setting on an iron to live up to it's name? Strange, thought little Timmy as he watched Mrs. O leap from the parapet. Me? Ah, you know.. Everything keeps smelling like cat food.
Not to beat the GPL Zealot drum too much, but their philosophy disturbs me. I wouldn't buy any of their proprietary extensions to Linux. Not because it makes it so I can't fix problems (I can't; I'm not a programmer) but because it is a LOCK IN. No one except TurboLinux can fix any problems that happen with their cluster server. That's not good any way you look at it. I for one won't support a company that has no problem locking in customers Microsoft-style to their products by using the classic embrace and extend tactic. So let's all do the right thing, and stick it to TurboLinux with dollars by not contributing a cent to their enterprise. If they won't play by our rules, then let's do our best to ensure they don't play at all.
.02
Just my
currently, MS has the upper hand over Intel - when MS says 'you have to do this and this becasue we want to blah blah on our next version' intel has to listen. Do they like this? I doubt it.
On the other hand, if they can control which features the OS has, and how it takes advantage of any new features of their chips, they will have a lot more room to change things.
Juln
What planet are you from?
Turbo Linux (Japanese), through my sad personal experience.
I am not GPL zealot but I think they should be a little bit kind to GPL community since they are benefited from GPL in many ways.
If you down load their "#1 status" Japanese version of TL distribution from their ftp, you will be comfortably surprised how fast their ftp servers are. (Reality: very few even bother to download because cheap high speed connection is still rare thing for most Japanese thanks to its stupid government and monopoly telephone company.) Good start for me. But when installation starts, I was annoyed to find out their distribution has intentionally broken X-system.
Their excuse is True type fonts they use are commercial software and thus excluded from FTP version. Japanese use over 1000 character fonts. Creating new font system is not trivial. So this excuse may sound OK. But Debian already has free true type included so they do not resort to be like this blatant broken distribution just to get by GPL. It looks like they do this just to charge for the software (over $100 per copy), important of which they get free from GPL/BSD community. Another concern I have is that it is practically impossible to copy and share this distribution due to tangled copyright position of each software components. With good money made with expensive distribution without even an installation support in the old days, they could have donated Japanese free true type font.
Whatever the wording in GPL/BSD, spirit is community. Being a member of community, they can not take-take. It has to be give-and-take. If they want to combine commercial software to Linux distribution, I ask them to do it kindly and nicely. I think similar type of consideration must be made by Corel people. If any Linux distributor makes enhancement to core part of distribution, they have to give back to community. If these are not done, GPL community may have to resort to introduce new restrictive rules on distribution.
Last note: my personal experience of old TL 2.0 Pro was miserable. No installation support and priced over $100. True type font and simple word processor was the only significant commercial software bundled. I decided never to purchase CD from them.
I ran the 3.0 distribution for about 2 months, almost a year ago... (has it been that long??)
:> Can't beat it.
At any rate... It's actually a very nice distribution....
Installs easily... is very well configured, etc. etc.
My problem arose in that it's geared for folks that don't
know beans about Linux.
I'm competent enough with Linux that I like to configure it
the way _I_ want it... but I wasn't competent enough
to install a large number of packages and services
due to my inability to re-configure all of their
custom scripts. *shrug*
Tech support was great though
E-mail response in a few hours (if not minutes) and
their own newsgroup as well (not tooo heavily poupulated either)
Personally I don't have anything against Intel for
investing in TurboLinux.... I'm not interested in
either of their products anymore....
Not intel for a few years... and not TurboLinux for the
above reasons... *shrug*
To each their own, though.
Friends don't let friends buy Compaq's. (Dell/Gateway... same same) You want a good computer? Build it yourself.
Not that I care what iNTEL does, but they sure as hell ain't smart. What was the loss RedFat made last year? $20M?