PROTIP: Linux *rules* servers and professional gear.
You disregard it... you're *fucked*.
Clover Trail is not intended for servers or professional gear, so maybe if Intel disregards Linux support for it, they're only "fucked" if that manages to provoke a level of nerd rage sufficient to get Intel competitors into a dominant position for servers and professional gear.
It's probably intentional that Apple haven't gone out of their way to make sure that Linux Just Works(TM) on their machines. They probably don't care that much about Linux-on-Macs one way or the other; I doubt they'd go out of their way to make it work or to make it not work.
but it does seem to be a trend.
I'm not sure there's a long-term trend to make it harder. It might have gotten a bit easier after the switch to x86, with more use of standard rather than custom glue chips.
if it's a win8 only chip, it quite possibly includes the damn "Trusted Boot" feature that MS wants on all hardware with UEFI. This means that unless the fucking bootloader and OS is blessed by MS, it wont run.
Unless you turn on "Custom Mode", which, according to Microsoft's Windows Hardware Certification Requirements for Client and Server Systems, has to be supported for "non-ARM systems" (see item 17 under "System.Fundamentals.Firmware.UEFISecureBoot"), or disable Secure Boot, which also has to be supported for "non-ARM systems" (see item 18 under "System.Fundamentals.Firmware.UEFISecureBoot").
especially if Intel continues to release its architecture datasheets, which we have no reason to think that they won't.
As somebody who's read one of Intel's yellow-cover "this is proprietary documentation we give out only under NDA" manuals, I have at least some reason to think that they could refuse to publicly document the Clover Trail power management features, so the Linux developers might have to reverse-engineer them. I read it about 15 years ago, so maybe things have changed since then, and they no longer have those sorts of NDA'ed documents.
To achieve that, Intel worked closely with Microsoft to instrument the chip to allow Windows 8 to control Clover Trail's advanced power management features, which support what Perlmutter called "always-on" functionality.
"So this chip expected to be used for desktop/laptop computing to a significant degree? Intel hardly has a dominant market position for tablet computing (and Microsoft doesn't have one, either)."
No, they both have a dominant market position for COMPUTING IN GENERAL.
There's such a thing as "computing in general" wherein one can have a dominant market position? News to me. There appears to be a fairly vigorous tablet market without any of the tablets running Windows or Office, so it's not at all obvious that the arrival of Windows 8 x86 tablets will suddenly make the tablet market just like the desktop/laptop market.
That includes tablet computing as part of it, whereas phone computing is a totally different story.
How is phone computing not part of "computing in general" and tablet computing part of "computing in general"? So what parts of computing are included in "computing in general"?
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
It requires that it not support other OSes on ARM machines. It requires that it be possible to turn it off on x86 machines.
how much do you want to bet intel made Clover trail boards 'won't' support either disabling it nor adding your own keys?
How much do I want to bet that Microsoft will change that part to allow that? Maybe a little more, but not much.
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.
Stop them, presumably, either by threatening patent suits (if there are patents involved) or threatening not to contribute patches in the future?
Enterprise customers please note Enterprise Linux versions will not run on any intel chips as those chips lack features needed for Linux kernel 4.0 onwards.
So you're predicting that the developers of enterprise features for Linux will deliberately punish the makers of a significant platform for enterprise Linux for not publishing information necessary to allow Linux to run on some tablets that use a processor that doesn't have much market share on tablets with an OS that doesn't have much market share on tablets?
Your comprehension must not be up to par, sir. Anyone should know I'm talking about Intel's claim that "This will not run Linux" and "This is a Windows 8 Chip" means linux kernel vs Microsoft kernel.
Somebody's skills aren't up to par; I'd vote for the person who spoke of "a competing kernel" without indicating why Intel would care about two competing kernels when they make neither and have supported both and without bringing up collusion - the only thing that could be at issue here would be collusion between Microsoft and Intel, so I don't think anybody could go after Intel alone on an anti-trust issue, they'd have to go after both Intel and Microsoft.
(I'm also a bit skeptical that any antitrust authority would give a rat's ass about Intel just stating that "this chip will not run Linux" - assuming they really did say that; the Ars Technica piece merely says that the Inquirer is claiming that they said that, and are only themselves reporting what David Perlmutter said. I rather doubt Linux developers would be dissuaded from trying to make Clover Trail work merely because Intel says it won't - heck, it might encourage them. It's only a big issue if Intel are telling the truth, e.g. if you have to support the new power management features to run on Clover Trail at all and if Intel are only documenting those features in non-public documents.)
Intel is using a dominant market position
So this chip expected to be used for desktop/laptop computing to a significant degree? Intel hardly has a dominant market position for tablet computing (and Microsoft doesn't have one, either).
to say "This won't run Linux, use Windows 8 instead!"
...which means that, if there are any antitrust issues, they'd have to involve collusion, given that Windows 8 isn't an Intel operating system.
Interestingly, the Ars Technical piece in question doesn't directly quote anybody from Intel saying Clover Trail “cannot run Linux”, they just say that the Inquirer reported that an Intel spokesperson at the Intel Developer Forum made that statement. What the Ars Technica piece reports from IDF is
On September 11, Intel Architecture Group Executive Vice President David Perlmutter told IDF attendees in his keynote that the Clover Trail system-on-a-chip architecture was designed specifically for Windows 8 tablets and “convertibles.” In effect, Clover Trail is Intel’s effort to provide a full Windows 8 experience (including enterprise features missing from Windows RT) on devices competitive with ARM-based Windows 8 tablets.
To achieve that, Intel worked closely with Microsoft to instrument the chip to allow Windows 8 to control Clover Trail's advanced power management features, which support what Perlmutter called "always-on" functionality. It's that special sauce in Clover Trail that won't be supported for other operating systems, including Linux, likely in part because of Intel’s desire to keep those features close to the vest—and because of contractual obligations to Microsoft.
so maybe 1) you can't run on Clover Trail without using the advanced power management features and 2) the documentation of those features won't be public (Intel have had documented-but-not-publicly-documented hardware features in the past), in which case Clover Trail won't be able to run Linux unless and until the features in question are reverse-engineered (and maybe there are Intel and/or Microsoft patents on those features to get in the way of doing that).
Or maybe not. Perhaps, for example, the features aren't required, but Linux-on-Clover-Trail will run the battery down faster if it doesn't use them.
That is entirely different from what intel is implying, which is that the BIOS issues regarding windows 8 preventing other operating systems from running
I don't see anything in TFA to indicate that Intel is implying that. Perhaps you're inferring that, but I'm not sure what those "BIOS issues" are; if you mean "UEFI issues", that's part of Microsoft's requirements for UEFI-for-ARM, not UEFI-for-x86.
TFA doesn't say where the statements in question were made, but the picture accompanying the article makes it look as if it were an Intel presentation somewhere, and if I look for Intel presentations in San Francisco around this date, it suggests this was probably the San Francisco 2012 Intel Developer Forum.
On September 11, Intel Architecture Group Executive Vice President David Perlmutter told IDF attendees in his keynote that the Clover Trail system-on-a-chip architecture was designed specifically for Windows 8 tablets and “convertibles.” In effect, Clover Trail is Intel’s effort to provide a full Windows 8 experience (including enterprise features missing from Windows RT) on devices competitive with ARM-based Windows 8 tablets.
To achieve that, Intel worked closely with Microsoft to instrument the chip to allow Windows 8 to control Clover Trail's advanced power management features, which support what Perlmutter called "always-on" functionality. It's that special sauce in Clover Trail that won't be supported for other operating systems, including Linux, likely in part because of Intel’s desire to keep those features close to the vest—and because of contractual obligations to Microsoft.
Still somewhat speculative ("likely in part because of..."), but a bit less handwaving than the Inquirer piece. Intel do have hardware features that they don't publicly document, and those power management features may fall into that category.
Ah, so that's the technical reason as to why I had to sacrifice a goat to my SCSI chain; to appease the Sky Fairies. Thanks for clearing that up TGN.
For those unaware of USENET history, here's the quote to which he was alluding (which I couldn't find in Google Groups; I vaguely remember asking John F. Woods where he said that and getting back a reply wherein he said he no longer remembered, but can't find the emails in question - maybe it was work email at a former employer).
Normaly, one of the first things a processor designer does after defining an architecture is porting gcc to it (AKA adds Linux support).
No, "making GCC generate code for a given processor" is not also known as "adding support to Linux for that processor"; for example, making GCC generate code for a given processor does not magically add processor-specific support code, such as code to support the processor's MMU, to the Linux kernel for that processor.
Rather than trying to appease Microsoft, I think that this is targeting the OEM who wants to lock their device into their chosen configuration, App Store etc.
If the OEMs in question want to run Windows 8, and want to lock their Windows 8 tablets to an App Store, I suspect they'll have difficulty achieving the first goal if the App Store they want to lock the machine to in the second goal isn't Microsoft's Windows Store.
OK, s/preclude OS-X from running on non Apple PCs/make it sufficiently difficult to run OS X on non-Apple PCs, and sue anybody who tries to sell machines with OS X preinstalled, so as to keep the number of people who do it low enough that it doesn't matter/.
I'm sure they'll see the error of their ways both in support when the countless numbers who don't read this article try to use linux, and lack of sales in the future because I can with great certainty tell you I'm not buying one.
The people "try[ing] to use linux" will probably be a small minority of the buyers of tablets based on it. Most people who don't want Windows 8 on their tablets will probably buy iPads or Android tablets rather than trying to stuff pick-your-Linux-distribution onto some tablet.
Maybe Intel figures there's not enough reason to use x86 rather than ARM for Android tablets for them to put any effort into caring how well Linux works on it, but figures the Windows 8 vs. Windows RT differences will provide enough reason for x86 Windows 8 tablets to exist.
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.
I did a Google search for
"clover trail" linux site:intel.com
and found a press release from June 2012 that said "The company has 20 design wins based on the forthcoming 32nm Intel® Atom SoC, codenamed “Clover Trail,” and designed for Microsoft* Windows* 8."
"Designed for Microsoft Windows 8" could mean anything from "we designed it to be incapable of running anything other than Windows 8" to "our design target was Windows 8 tablets but if it runs other OSes that'd be just fine with us (but maybe that's unlikely because, for example, Android for tablets is mainly being used on ARM so maybe no manufacturer will care about using it to run anything else)" to "we designed it so that it would run Windows 8 better than earlier designs".
That's not saying "We won't support it" that's LYING IN MARKET about the capabilities of its chip and causing direct harm to a competing kernel and subset of operating systems based upon that kernel.
To which Intel-developed-and-sold competing kernel are you referring? If it's not Intel-developed-and-sold, it's not as if Intel is using a dominant market position in desktop/laptop microprocessors to support another of its products (and it's also not clear that Intel has a dominant market position in small system-on-a-chip processors such as Clover Trail).
The parent was talking about Mountain Lion which includes no such option.
The parent didn't use the word "Lion" anywhere, so you're making an assumption that they were talking about Mountain Lion.
If they were, then Mountain Lion, like its predecessors going all the way back to at least to Panther, doesn't support all of the machines that its predecessor did; this is not unique to Apple's OSes, either, so whining about Apple there is bogus. Perhaps Microsoft (or Canonical or Red Hat or...) makes different choices as to which older machines to kick to the curb, but they still make those choices.
par for the course for apple they also lockout 64 bit only os on 64 bit hardware due to it only having 32bit EFI. But the same systems can boot 64 bit windows os.
...and can run 64-bit OS X applications (you don't need a 64-bit XNU to run 64-bit OS X applications), so "no 64-bit XNU" isn't as severe a limitation as one might think.
Slashdot Mirror
Technically, Apple IS compliant.
From the agreement at http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise
Said agreement being at http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/newsroom/cf/_getdocument.cfm?doc_id=5274.
That's not "Yes," that's "No." If Ars is referencing The Inquirer, then there is no other original source than The Inquirer.
Ars said
The Inquirer said nothing about Perlmutter, so Ars isn't just referencing the Inquirer, so the "if" of your statement is false.
Perlmutter's keynote is about 58 minutes long, so I'm not about to dive into it right now, but maybe I'll dig into it a bit later.
PROTIP: Linux *rules* servers and professional gear.
You disregard it... you're *fucked*.
Clover Trail is not intended for servers or professional gear, so maybe if Intel disregards Linux support for it, they're only "fucked" if that manages to provoke a level of nerd rage sufficient to get Intel competitors into a dominant position for servers and professional gear.
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTE1ODA
Maybe it's intentional, maybe it's not
It's probably intentional that Apple haven't gone out of their way to make sure that Linux Just Works(TM) on their machines. They probably don't care that much about Linux-on-Macs one way or the other; I doubt they'd go out of their way to make it work or to make it not work.
but it does seem to be a trend.
I'm not sure there's a long-term trend to make it harder. It might have gotten a bit easier after the switch to x86, with more use of standard rather than custom glue chips.
And, if you actually look at the intel-gfx thread pointed to by the Phoronix article, and follow that into the Linux kernel mailing list, it might just have been a bug or, at least, unnecessary (mis)feature that was subsequently fixed/removed.
The Phoronix article also linked to a blog post about a non-Apple laptop that needed a bit of help to boot Debian from a USB installation and didn't support all the hardware, so it's not as if "not entirely happy to run Linux" is an Apple-only problem.
if it's a win8 only chip, it quite possibly includes the damn "Trusted Boot" feature that MS wants on all hardware with UEFI. This means that unless the fucking bootloader and OS is blessed by MS, it wont run.
Unless you turn on "Custom Mode", which, according to Microsoft's Windows Hardware Certification Requirements for Client and Server Systems, has to be supported for "non-ARM systems" (see item 17 under "System.Fundamentals.Firmware.UEFISecureBoot"), or disable Secure Boot, which also has to be supported for "non-ARM systems" (see item 18 under "System.Fundamentals.Firmware.UEFISecureBoot").
especially if Intel continues to release its architecture datasheets, which we have no reason to think that they won't.
As somebody who's read one of Intel's yellow-cover "this is proprietary documentation we give out only under NDA" manuals, I have at least some reason to think that they could refuse to publicly document the Clover Trail power management features, so the Linux developers might have to reverse-engineer them. I read it about 15 years ago, so maybe things have changed since then, and they no longer have those sorts of NDA'ed documents.
Could be that MS has beta samples of Clover Trail on which they developed Windows 8 Tablet version.
According to the Ars Technical note on this
"So this chip expected to be used for desktop/laptop computing to a significant degree? Intel hardly has a dominant market position for tablet computing (and Microsoft doesn't have one, either)."
No, they both have a dominant market position for COMPUTING IN GENERAL.
There's such a thing as "computing in general" wherein one can have a dominant market position? News to me. There appears to be a fairly vigorous tablet market without any of the tablets running Windows or Office, so it's not at all obvious that the arrival of Windows 8 x86 tablets will suddenly make the tablet market just like the desktop/laptop market.
That includes tablet computing as part of it, whereas phone computing is a totally different story.
How is phone computing not part of "computing in general" and tablet computing part of "computing in general"? So what parts of computing are included in "computing in general"?
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
It requires that it not support other OSes on ARM machines. It requires that it be possible to turn it off on x86 machines.
how much do you want to bet intel made Clover trail boards 'won't' support either disabling it nor adding your own keys?
How much do I want to bet that Intel-made Clover Trail boards will violate the Windows Hardware Certification Requirements for Client and Server Systems item 17 in the "System.Fundamentals.Firmware.UEFISecureBoot" section by not supporting "Custom Mode"? Not very much.
How much do I want to bet that Microsoft will change that part to allow that? Maybe a little more, but not much.
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.
Stop them, presumably, either by threatening patent suits (if there are patents involved) or threatening not to contribute patches in the future?
Enterprise customers please note Enterprise Linux versions will not run on any intel chips as those chips lack features needed for Linux kernel 4.0 onwards.
So you're predicting that the developers of enterprise features for Linux will deliberately punish the makers of a significant platform for enterprise Linux for not publishing information necessary to allow Linux to run on some tablets that use a processor that doesn't have much market share on tablets with an OS that doesn't have much market share on tablets?
Your comprehension must not be up to par, sir. Anyone should know I'm talking about Intel's claim that "This will not run Linux" and "This is a Windows 8 Chip" means linux kernel vs Microsoft kernel.
Somebody's skills aren't up to par; I'd vote for the person who spoke of "a competing kernel" without indicating why Intel would care about two competing kernels when they make neither and have supported both and without bringing up collusion - the only thing that could be at issue here would be collusion between Microsoft and Intel, so I don't think anybody could go after Intel alone on an anti-trust issue, they'd have to go after both Intel and Microsoft.
(I'm also a bit skeptical that any antitrust authority would give a rat's ass about Intel just stating that "this chip will not run Linux" - assuming they really did say that; the Ars Technica piece merely says that the Inquirer is claiming that they said that, and are only themselves reporting what David Perlmutter said. I rather doubt Linux developers would be dissuaded from trying to make Clover Trail work merely because Intel says it won't - heck, it might encourage them. It's only a big issue if Intel are telling the truth, e.g. if you have to support the new power management features to run on Clover Trail at all and if Intel are only documenting those features in non-public documents.)
Intel is using a dominant market position
So this chip expected to be used for desktop/laptop computing to a significant degree? Intel hardly has a dominant market position for tablet computing (and Microsoft doesn't have one, either).
to say "This won't run Linux, use Windows 8 instead!"
...which means that, if there are any antitrust issues, they'd have to involve collusion, given that Windows 8 isn't an Intel operating system.
Is there any source for this statement besides The Inquirer?
Yes.
Interestingly, the Ars Technical piece in question doesn't directly quote anybody from Intel saying Clover Trail “cannot run Linux”, they just say that the Inquirer reported that an Intel spokesperson at the Intel Developer Forum made that statement. What the Ars Technica piece reports from IDF is
so maybe 1) you can't run on Clover Trail without using the advanced power management features and 2) the documentation of those features won't be public (Intel have had documented-but-not-publicly-documented hardware features in the past), in which case Clover Trail won't be able to run Linux unless and until the features in question are reverse-engineered (and maybe there are Intel and/or Microsoft patents on those features to get in the way of doing that).
Or maybe not. Perhaps, for example, the features aren't required, but Linux-on-Clover-Trail will run the battery down faster if it doesn't use them.
That is entirely different from what intel is implying, which is that the BIOS issues regarding windows 8 preventing other operating systems from running
I don't see anything in TFA to indicate that Intel is implying that. Perhaps you're inferring that, but I'm not sure what those "BIOS issues" are; if you mean "UEFI issues", that's part of Microsoft's requirements for UEFI-for-ARM, not UEFI-for-x86.
TFA doesn't say where the statements in question were made, but the picture accompanying the article makes it look as if it were an Intel presentation somewhere, and if I look for Intel presentations in San Francisco around this date, it suggests this was probably the San Francisco 2012 Intel Developer Forum.
Given that, a little more searching found an Ars Technica item about this; it says
Still somewhat speculative ("likely in part because of..."), but a bit less handwaving than the Inquirer piece. Intel do have hardware features that they don't publicly document, and those power management features may fall into that category.
Ah, so that's the technical reason as to why I had to sacrifice a goat to my SCSI chain; to appease the Sky Fairies. Thanks for clearing that up TGN.
For those unaware of USENET history, here's the quote to which he was alluding (which I couldn't find in Google Groups; I vaguely remember asking John F. Woods where he said that and getting back a reply wherein he said he no longer remembered, but can't find the emails in question - maybe it was work email at a former employer).
Normaly, one of the first things a processor designer does after defining an architecture is porting gcc to it (AKA adds Linux support).
No, "making GCC generate code for a given processor" is not also known as "adding support to Linux for that processor"; for example, making GCC generate code for a given processor does not magically add processor-specific support code, such as code to support the processor's MMU, to the Linux kernel for that processor.
Rather than trying to appease Microsoft, I think that this is targeting the OEM who wants to lock their device into their chosen configuration, App Store etc.
If the OEMs in question want to run Windows 8, and want to lock their Windows 8 tablets to an App Store, I suspect they'll have difficulty achieving the first goal if the App Store they want to lock the machine to in the second goal isn't Microsoft's Windows Store.
Really? I have OS X on my thinkpad.
OK, s/preclude OS-X from running on non Apple PCs/make it sufficiently difficult to run OS X on non-Apple PCs, and sue anybody who tries to sell machines with OS X preinstalled, so as to keep the number of people who do it low enough that it doesn't matter/.
I'm sure they'll see the error of their ways both in support when the countless numbers who don't read this article try to use linux, and lack of sales in the future because I can with great certainty tell you I'm not buying one.
The people "try[ing] to use linux" will probably be a small minority of the buyers of tablets based on it. Most people who don't want Windows 8 on their tablets will probably buy iPads or Android tablets rather than trying to stuff pick-your-Linux-distribution onto some tablet.
Maybe Intel is betting on Windows 8.
Maybe Intel figures there's not enough reason to use x86 rather than ARM for Android tablets for them to put any effort into caring how well Linux works on it, but figures the Windows 8 vs. Windows RT differences will provide enough reason for x86 Windows 8 tablets to exist.
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.
I did a Google search for
"clover trail" linux site:intel.com
and found a press release from June 2012 that said "The company has 20 design wins based on the forthcoming 32nm Intel® Atom SoC, codenamed “Clover Trail,” and designed for Microsoft* Windows* 8."
"Designed for Microsoft Windows 8" could mean anything from "we designed it to be incapable of running anything other than Windows 8" to "our design target was Windows 8 tablets but if it runs other OSes that'd be just fine with us (but maybe that's unlikely because, for example, Android for tablets is mainly being used on ARM so maybe no manufacturer will care about using it to run anything else)" to "we designed it so that it would run Windows 8 better than earlier designs".
That's not saying "We won't support it" that's LYING IN MARKET about the capabilities of its chip and causing direct harm to a competing kernel and subset of operating systems based upon that kernel.
To which Intel-developed-and-sold competing kernel are you referring? If it's not Intel-developed-and-sold, it's not as if Intel is using a dominant market position in desktop/laptop microprocessors to support another of its products (and it's also not clear that Intel has a dominant market position in small system-on-a-chip processors such as Clover Trail).
The parent was talking about Mountain Lion which includes no such option.
The parent didn't use the word "Lion" anywhere, so you're making an assumption that they were talking about Mountain Lion.
If they were, then Mountain Lion, like its predecessors going all the way back to at least to Panther, doesn't support all of the machines that its predecessor did; this is not unique to Apple's OSes, either, so whining about Apple there is bogus. Perhaps Microsoft (or Canonical or Red Hat or...) makes different choices as to which older machines to kick to the curb, but they still make those choices.
par for the course for apple they also lockout 64 bit only os on 64 bit hardware due to it only having 32bit EFI. But the same systems can boot 64 bit windows os.
...and can run 64-bit OS X applications (you don't need a 64-bit XNU to run 64-bit OS X applications), so "no 64-bit XNU" isn't as severe a limitation as one might think.
Better yet, Mountain View...
Or were you thinking of a Facebook phone?
Here have some more faggot!
No, thanks, four faggots was enough for dinner.