I agree, but I'm not so sure Intel does much with their microprocessors anymore at all. It seems to me that other manufacturers make better x86 chips than they do (eg., AMD's Athalon vs. Intel's PIII). Moreover, I think the x86 architecture itself should have been dead and gone a decade ago; it's about damn time everyone started using a processor with a streamlined instruction set that runs cool enough not to need a fan. Processors with better architectures run at lower clock speeds, use less energy, and do the same job faster. That's the reality of microprocessor design now, and Intel engineers know it.
The problem is that Intel's current success is based on millions of lines of legacy code attributed to thousands of developers who write for the hundreds of millions of users who are still using obsolete technology. The operating system monopoly for IA processors basically controls what Intel can and can't do, and it always has. Why is there *any* reason for a Pentium to think it's an 8088 before you tell it otherwise? Because the predominant operating system of the day of the i386, MS-DOS, was written for the 8088, and porting it would have screwed up lots of software for MS, hence they would lose money. So Intel compensated to save their business.
No matter what Intel does with the IA64 or Merced, they will still be subject to the IA OS monopoly. I don't think they plan to do much real engineering. They just need to up clock speeds every once in a while and advertise to the masses. This patent is an attempt to sidestep distributed computing en masse as it would probably first occur; the VNA itself is old news, and Intel knows it. They want to hang on to all the dead weight that is IA for as long as possible and maximize profit. That's what this is about.
First off, IANAL. I do believe that GPL loopholes will have a significant influence on the direction taken by commercial Linux development and should be worked out by legal types. However, I also believe that falling back to legalease behavior will help neither the Corel situation nor GNU/Linux effort in general. In fact, it could have disasterous consequences.
Lawsuits involving licensing issues in Linux development and distribution will put the GPL to test and set dangerous legal precedents for OSS. They could partition development and restrict the freedom of distribution that has always been the cornerstone of the GPL for commerce. And if the GPL stops being applicable to commerce, OSS stops being applicable to the free-market economies that determine what lives and what dies for the mainstream.
BESIDES.
There is a big difference between what the Corel license accomplishes in theory and in practice. Frankly, I see the term at the top in a lot of licenses I don't read. And It's the *only* one I see. I scroll past the rest and hit the big, friendly button. For most practical intents and purposes, it's meaningless. Corel can't tell whether the guy that clicks "Accept" is 90 or 14, and they don't care anyway until they see him in court.
So, I say address the issue, but keep it out of court. Refine the GPL. Make sure that OSS has a very sound legal foundation. If it's good enough, you'll never have to use it.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree, but I'm not so sure Intel does much with their microprocessors anymore at all. It seems to me that other manufacturers make better x86 chips than they do (eg., AMD's Athalon vs. Intel's PIII). Moreover, I think the x86 architecture itself should have been dead and gone a decade ago; it's about damn time everyone started using a processor with a streamlined instruction set that runs cool enough not to need a fan. Processors with better architectures run at lower clock speeds, use less energy, and do the same job faster. That's the reality of microprocessor design now, and Intel engineers know it.
The problem is that Intel's current success is based on millions of lines of legacy code attributed to thousands of developers who write for the hundreds of millions of users who are still using obsolete technology. The operating system monopoly for IA processors basically controls what Intel can and can't do, and it always has. Why is there *any* reason for a Pentium to think it's an 8088 before you tell it otherwise? Because the predominant operating system of the day of the i386, MS-DOS, was written for the 8088, and porting it would have screwed up lots of software for MS, hence they would lose money. So Intel compensated to save their business.
No matter what Intel does with the IA64 or Merced, they will still be subject to the IA OS monopoly. I don't think they plan to do much real engineering. They just need to up clock speeds every once in a while and advertise to the masses. This patent is an attempt to sidestep distributed computing en masse as it would probably first occur; the VNA itself is old news, and Intel knows it. They want to hang on to all the dead weight that is IA for as long as possible and maximize profit. That's what this is about.
First off, IANAL. I do believe that GPL loopholes will have a significant influence on the direction taken by commercial Linux development and should be worked out by legal types. However, I also believe that falling back to legalease behavior will help neither the Corel situation nor GNU/Linux effort in general. In fact, it could have disasterous consequences.
Lawsuits involving licensing issues in Linux development and distribution will put the GPL to test and set dangerous legal precedents for OSS. They could partition development and restrict the freedom of distribution that has always been the cornerstone of the GPL for commerce. And if the GPL stops being applicable to commerce, OSS stops being applicable to the free-market economies that determine what lives and what dies for the mainstream.
BESIDES.
There is a big difference between what the Corel license accomplishes in theory and in practice. Frankly, I see the term at the top in a lot of licenses I don't read. And It's the *only* one I see. I scroll past the rest and hit the big, friendly button. For most practical intents and purposes, it's meaningless. Corel can't tell whether the guy that clicks "Accept" is 90 or 14, and they don't care anyway until they see him in court.
So, I say address the issue, but keep it out of court. Refine the GPL. Make sure that OSS has a very sound legal foundation. If it's good enough, you'll never have to use it.