Simple, the ability to run M$ operating systems (which the other chips no longer have). As long as M$ has it's weight behind the thing, then Intel will always have a significant advantage.
Yes, but that didn't help out Alpha or PowerPC much. While Microsoft is supporting it, I don't really see them really pushing it. Also, while I assume Microsoft and Intel are still on speaking terms, it would appear their relationship has cooled significantly since it's heyday. I wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft was also praying for x86-64 over IA64, first because it precludes having to risk a significant investment in supporting an additional platform. With x86-64, they can wait and see if it catches on before making any significant investment in supporting it natively. In addition, I'm sure they wouldn't mind using AMD as a club to beat Intel with.
...considering the alternative. Itanium is certainly a decent high end processor, but really, what advantage does it have on the high end not offered by Power, Sparc, PA-Risc, etc? Also, in x86 compatibilty mode, it suffers a rather significant performance hit, so as a drop in replacement for x86 it's value is limited. And the complexity of writing decent VLSI compiliers calls into question whether software will ever be able to take advantage of the performance the processor is theoretically capable of. Where as x86-64 can run current software with equal or better performance, and new applications written to the 64 bit instruction set can be phased in non-disruptively. Itanium may be nice, but for the kinds of applications where it could be used to advantage, I don't see where it has any advantage over other common RISC processors.
Don't you find it a bit strange that MSNBC, which is at least half owned by Microsoft, is almost advocating Linux?
How's this for a conspiracy theory - Bill Gates, being a geek at heart, is secretly a supporter of Linux. Unfortunately, a public endorsement would de-value the stock value of Microsoft, leaving him liable to lawsuits from Microsoft's shareholders.
IIRC, TurboLinux was the distro IBM sold to Sherwin-Williams to support their operations. I'm not sure they ever had much of a user-base among consumers, they were always targeted at businesses.
it's amazing how much effort is being reduplicated in the OS world. they should put their efforts into WINE
That might be exactly what they're doing. Which would be cool, as long as they share their improvements to the code. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.
Truthfully, I don't really think it matters if Linux does die. In it's brief life, it's revitalized Unix in a big way. Consider: now you have a major Unix based desktop (Mac OS X). You have great desktops in KDE and Gnome, and you have a whole new generation of developers and sysadmins that have developed a taste for, and a familiarity with, Unix-like operating systems. And you have a whole lot of software which has been developed which is easily portable to other Unix variants.
Whether Linux itself survives or not is superfluous. It's influence will survive.
Heh, I bet the head IT decision-maker at Sherwin Williams is shitting his pants right about now. Dude probably has a nice pink slip sitting on his desk waiting for him tomorrow morning.
Why? They have support from IBM. And when the time comes for an upgrade, they just switch distros. Which will be very easy indeed if they're using the United Linux varient. No biggie. We're talking Linux here, after all.
I think the fragmentation of the linux market is a good thing. Anything that stops a single vendor from having a monolopy is a good thing. So i feel united linux was a good thing. Although I personally feel debian will stand the test of time, resisting red hat for supremacy.
Yes, but I think the Linux market is a little too fragmented at this point - nobody is earning enough to make a profit! This was inevitable really, and I don't think Turbo will be the last.
If anyone is going to make money in this space, one of two things have to occur: either there needs to be a bigger market, or there needs to be less suppliers.
I don't really see Debian and RedHat as competitors. Debian is not a for-profit company, they're more art for art's sake, like GNU. A company that's interested in buying their product from a company that provides services and consulting on top ala RedHat isn't even going to consider Debian. They both appeal to a different audience.
Slashdot Mirror
Simple, the ability to run M$ operating systems (which the other chips no longer have). As long as M$ has it's weight behind the thing, then Intel will always have a significant advantage.
Yes, but that didn't help out Alpha or PowerPC much. While Microsoft is supporting it, I don't really see them really pushing it. Also, while I assume Microsoft and Intel are still on speaking terms, it would appear their relationship has cooled significantly since it's heyday. I wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft was also praying for x86-64 over IA64, first because it precludes having to risk a significant investment in supporting an additional platform. With x86-64, they can wait and see if it catches on before making any significant investment in supporting it natively. In addition, I'm sure they wouldn't mind using AMD as a club to beat Intel with.
...considering the alternative. Itanium is certainly a decent high end processor, but really, what advantage does it have on the high end not offered by Power, Sparc, PA-Risc, etc? Also, in x86 compatibilty mode, it suffers a rather significant performance hit, so as a drop in replacement for x86 it's value is limited. And the complexity of writing decent VLSI compiliers calls into question whether software will ever be able to take advantage of the performance the processor is theoretically capable of. Where as x86-64 can run current software with equal or better performance, and new applications written to the 64 bit instruction set can be phased in non-disruptively. Itanium may be nice, but for the kinds of applications where it could be used to advantage, I don't see where it has any advantage over other common RISC processors.
Don't you find it a bit strange that MSNBC, which is at least half owned by Microsoft, is almost advocating Linux?
How's this for a conspiracy theory - Bill Gates, being a geek at heart, is secretly a supporter of Linux. Unfortunately, a public endorsement would de-value the stock value of Microsoft, leaving him liable to lawsuits from Microsoft's shareholders.
Hey, stranger things have happened!
Ah, but Salon has writers. Here, we're going to ask the users to do the writing, and charge them?
Or course! And they ought to be charging Jon Katz a fortune!
IIRC, TurboLinux was the distro IBM sold to Sherwin-Williams to support their operations. I'm not sure they ever had much of a user-base among consumers, they were always targeted at businesses.
it's amazing how much effort is being reduplicated in the OS world. they should put their efforts into WINE
That might be exactly what they're doing. Which would be cool, as long as they share their improvements to the code. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.
Truthfully, I don't really think it matters if Linux does die. In it's brief life, it's revitalized Unix in a big way. Consider: now you have a major Unix based desktop (Mac OS X). You have great desktops in KDE and Gnome, and you have a whole new generation of developers and sysadmins that have developed a taste for, and a familiarity with, Unix-like operating systems. And you have a whole lot of software which has been developed which is easily portable to other Unix variants.
Whether Linux itself survives or not is superfluous. It's influence will survive.
Heh, I bet the head IT decision-maker at Sherwin Williams is shitting his pants right about now. Dude probably has a nice pink slip sitting on his desk waiting for him tomorrow morning.
Why? They have support from IBM. And when the time comes for an upgrade, they just switch distros. Which will be very easy indeed if they're using the United Linux varient. No biggie. We're talking Linux here, after all.
I think the fragmentation of the linux market is a good thing. Anything that stops a single vendor from having a monolopy is a good thing. So i feel united linux was a good thing. Although I personally feel debian will stand the test of time, resisting red hat for supremacy. Yes, but I think the Linux market is a little too fragmented at this point - nobody is earning enough to make a profit! This was inevitable really, and I don't think Turbo will be the last. If anyone is going to make money in this space, one of two things have to occur: either there needs to be a bigger market, or there needs to be less suppliers. I don't really see Debian and RedHat as competitors. Debian is not a for-profit company, they're more art for art's sake, like GNU. A company that's interested in buying their product from a company that provides services and consulting on top ala RedHat isn't even going to consider Debian. They both appeal to a different audience.