Irresponsible

> The point is that Intel created something and ASKED people to use it. They promoted it. They told you it could be relied upon. People supported Intel. There may not have been a contract but their was investment on both sides.

Did Intel actually say it could be relied upon? (and what does "relied upon" even mean, really?)

After all, I'm not the only one who remembers Intel saying it shouldn't be used for production purposes. (That's not to say it wasn't useful in other contexts)

Meanwhile, all investments carry risk, and many fail every day. ("past performance is not indicative of future results")

Clear's main purpose was marketing; ie showcasing the performance gains of Intel's hardware products, and it was entirely paid for by Intel's profits from said products. Putting aside the question of whether or not Clear ever resulted in attributable revenue coming in (which is highly unlikely) those profits (and performance) have not existed for several *years* now, and are not likely to return for several more... if ever. The writing was on the wall several rounds of layoffs ago.

"trusting" a for-profit company to continue provide a service that has negative margins is foolish, even when it's not bleeding literally billions of dollars in losses.

Yes, this shutdown-with-no-notice sucks to its users. But I'm sure the now-unemployed folks that were working on Clear would have preferred a different outcome too.

...But if "trust in Linux Distributions" is what you're after, there's always Debian.