Having been for a long while a silent monitor of Slashdot, I have been moved to verbosity by this article and the posts it has provoked.
Some of the comments I have witnessed are balanced, others are the voices of evangelists, yet others merely follow the general tide, which is naturally just what is meant by "Know thyself". Although many may come to miss the sound of my silence, here is my voice.
Having some knowledge of both organizations, I state: Wintel is a mythological entity. Intel does not allow the use of the word in any of its documents except to say: "No such architecture". And think of Microsoft. If even Linux runs on Alphas, Is it logical to believe that an enterprise like Microsoft wishes to be tied to a single processor vendor? Is not their new.NET vision a direct challenge to that notion? Did not Intel's testimony at the Microsoft anti-trust hearings demonstrate strains that have always existed between the companies?
Intel has known since the middle of the 20th century's closing decade that it was on a collision course with Microsoft. A small consequence of this knowledge came to our attention when Intel demonstrated a home-grown, 64-bit Linux variant on its IA-64 architecture. Has not Intel also established a foundation for developing an independent 64-bit Linux version for its upcoming launch? Does anyone doubt that they develop their own operating systems for testing their new architectures?
Both Intel and Microsoft are in business for one reason: to make money. This is the motivating factor for all busineses, Is it not? Even those that sell Linux. It follows that neither Intel nor Microsoft wish to have business channels sealed off by mutual exclusivity. Intel has always wanted to make it very clear that Microsoft is tied to their architecture, not viceversa. And you can bet that Microsoft has the same attitude.
So, is this action a gauntlet thrown at the feet of Intel by Microsoft? Not really; the challenge has existed for some time.
Will this action precipitate the fall of either or both companies? No. The coffers of both companies overflow, much to the chagrin of some zealots. Some words of advice to these: Beware that your dogmatic hatred of an organization does not become a dogmatic preference for others who, under that sheep's skin, are of the same wolf pack.
[ t h e D e v D u d e ] || mail
Slashdot Mirror
Having been for a long while a silent monitor of Slashdot, I have been moved to verbosity by this article and the posts it has provoked. Some of the comments I have witnessed are balanced, others are the voices of evangelists, yet others merely follow the general tide, which is naturally just what is meant by "Know thyself". Although many may come to miss the sound of my silence, here is my voice. Having some knowledge of both organizations, I state: Wintel is a mythological entity. Intel does not allow the use of the word in any of its documents except to say: "No such architecture". And think of Microsoft. If even Linux runs on Alphas, Is it logical to believe that an enterprise like Microsoft wishes to be tied to a single processor vendor? Is not their new .NET vision a direct challenge to that notion? Did not Intel's testimony at the Microsoft anti-trust hearings demonstrate strains that have always existed between the companies?
Intel has known since the middle of the 20th century's closing decade that it was on a collision course with Microsoft. A small consequence of this knowledge came to our attention when Intel demonstrated a home-grown, 64-bit Linux variant on its IA-64 architecture. Has not Intel also established a foundation for developing an independent 64-bit Linux version for its upcoming launch? Does anyone doubt that they develop their own operating systems for testing their new architectures?
Both Intel and Microsoft are in business for one reason: to make money. This is the motivating factor for all busineses, Is it not? Even those that sell Linux. It follows that neither Intel nor Microsoft wish to have business channels sealed off by mutual exclusivity. Intel has always wanted to make it very clear that Microsoft is tied to their architecture, not viceversa. And you can bet that Microsoft has the same attitude.
So, is this action a gauntlet thrown at the feet of Intel by Microsoft? Not really; the challenge has existed for some time.
Will this action precipitate the fall of either or both companies? No. The coffers of both companies overflow, much to the chagrin of some zealots. Some words of advice to these: Beware that your dogmatic hatred of an organization does not become a dogmatic preference for others who, under that sheep's skin, are of the same wolf pack.
[ t h e D e v D u d e ] || mail