Not logged in
Log in now
Create an account
Subscribe to LWN
LWN.net Weekly Edition for May 23, 2013
An "enum" for Python 3
An unexpected perf feature
LWN.net Weekly Edition for May 16, 2013
A look at the PyPy 2.0 release
Intel declares Clover Trail Atom processor a "no Linux" zone (ars technica)
Posted Sep 14, 2012 19:11 UTC (Fri) by drag (subscriber, #31333)
I wouldn't worry about Intel too much. They are a huge company and they are all just made up of groups of mostly autonomous organizations. So what one part of Intel does may have little or no bearing on what other parts of Intel. Ultimately I would rather have a Linux-free hardware a repeat of what happened with Intel GMA500's Linux support. Sometimes it's better to have no support then something like that.
Posted Sep 14, 2012 19:34 UTC (Fri) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330)
Posted Sep 14, 2012 23:36 UTC (Fri) by drag (subscriber, #31333)
I am pretty sure about that. From what I can tell this chip will sport a PowerVR-based IGP that is a descendant of the IPGs used in those old netbooks.
So it's extremely likely that; The 'secret' powermanagement has more then likely involve the video stuff, it's not Intel's 'IP' and they are not at liberty to make it public knowledge, and even if Intel wanted to run Linux on it it wouldn't work out any better then with the GMA500.
Posted Sep 15, 2012 0:39 UTC (Sat) by rahvin (subscriber, #16953)
My personal expectation is that Intel will be going back to the bad old days with the Atom line. I don't really expect the atoms to do well without Linux support so they will be shooting themselves in the foot.
Posted Sep 15, 2012 7:51 UTC (Sat) by rossburton (subscriber, #7254)
Posted Sep 15, 2012 11:32 UTC (Sat) by juliank (subscriber, #45896)
Posted Sep 14, 2012 23:57 UTC (Fri) by THe_ZiPMaN (subscriber, #27460)
Here you are served...
Microsoft's money rocks more than AMD.
Posted Sep 15, 2012 0:29 UTC (Sat) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313)
However, a chip that is going to be sold to many manufacturers that is locked to one OS seems 'odd'
but then again, nothing (except possibly stupid contracts with Microsoft) forces anyone to build any products around these chips. Yes they will be the latest and greatest, but are they really going to be enough better that they will be willing to lock themselves in like that?
Who wants a MS-only Atom?
Posted Sep 15, 2012 7:21 UTC (Sat) by rvfh (subscriber, #31018)
Posted Sep 15, 2012 7:20 UTC (Sat) by tuna (guest, #44480)
Posted Sep 15, 2012 14:42 UTC (Sat) by drag (subscriber, #31333)
Posted Sep 16, 2012 17:24 UTC (Sun) by tuna (guest, #44480)
Still applicable even though very old.
Posted Sep 18, 2012 15:06 UTC (Tue) by petrakis (subscriber, #39672)
It's also going to get worse before it gets better thanks to the rate of disposable platforms (SoCs), it's more efficient to get to market with a proprietary GPU driver, working closely with the GPU vendor, than it is fumbling through the opensource "equivalent" without any assistance from the vendor.
The only real way out of this is to establish an open GPU platform with a LGPL'ish license that's so good with power and performance that the status quo can't ignore the price differential.
Posted Sep 19, 2012 12:53 UTC (Wed) by roblucid (subscriber, #48964)
Posted Sep 15, 2012 21:38 UTC (Sat) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510)
For most of these systems, the best power management is to run them full-out when they have work to do, and to keep the CPU halted when it's idle.
The Linux kernel does that without either APM or ACPI.
Just what kind of hardware do you have?
Posted Sep 15, 2012 23:58 UTC (Sat) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239)
Posted Sep 16, 2012 19:49 UTC (Sun) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510)
Posted Sep 16, 2012 21:08 UTC (Sun) by tuna (guest, #44480)
Posted Sep 19, 2012 12:42 UTC (Wed) by roblucid (subscriber, #48964)
Posted Sep 17, 2012 20:07 UTC (Mon) by christian.convey (guest, #39159)
Copyright © 2013, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds