Very Computer

http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,47993,00.html

"A senior Intel official said Tuesday that the world's largest chipmaker
has been inspired by Napster, the song-swapping Internet service, and
Linux, the free operating system, to overhaul some of its technology
infrastructure."

"Meanwhile, Linux was another unexpected result from ad hoc Internet
collaboration that has been embraced by Intel, saving the chipmaker $200
million, Busch said."

"In any case, using Linux is not much cheaper than Windows 2000. Although
Linux is free, the real costs are related to the computers, as well as
support and maintenance, he said."

====================
$200 million seems like a big cost savings to me.  I know a few companies
that would be in a lot better shape if they had saved this much...Spicerun

This sentence doesn't make any sense to me.
If I had used Windows instead of Linux for my 5 computer home
network, the cost of my entire configuration would've increased
at least 50%.  Once you choose and pay for a closed source
operating system like Windows, in many cases, you're also
forced to pay for closed source applications.

I think Intel just made this statement just to not offend
Microsoft.  They're afraid if they back Linux too much,
Bill Gates and his cohorts will put their muscle behind
some other alternative microprocessor like the PowerPC.

-----=  Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News  =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
 Check out our new Unlimited Server. No Download or Time Limits!
-----==  Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers!  ==-----

I agree.  Considering that Intel has now released a C++ and a Fortran
compiler for linux.

[snip]

Quote:>> "In any case, using Linux is not much cheaper than Windows 2000.
>> Although Linux is free, the real costs are related to the computers, as
>> well as support and maintenance, he said."

> This sentence doesn't make any sense to me. If I had used Windows
> instead of Linux for my 5 computer home network, the cost of my entire
> configuration would've increased at least 50%.  Once you choose and pay
> for a closed source operating system like Windows, in many cases, you're
> also forced to pay for closed source applications.

> I think Intel just made this statement just to not offend Microsoft.
> They're afraid if they back Linux too much, Bill Gates and his cohorts
> will put their muscle behind some other alternative microprocessor like
> the PowerPC.

Intel has a sweetheart deal with Microsoft.  It wouldn't surprise me if
Intel paid less for a W2K server license with unlimited CALs than what
you'd pay for a retail copy of XP home edition.  Anyway, a lot of their
stuff is run by green-badgers (contractors) and those costs are fixed
regardless of the server OS.

So I would tend to agree with that assessment.  When shutting down a FAB
costs them a million dollars a day, saving a measly couple hundred thou'
on an OS purchase over several years is a drop in the bucket.

Still nice to see them using more and more Linux, though.

On Wed, 31 Oct 2001 16:27:53 -0500,

For which, Motorola, IBM and Apple will simply tell the
bastards to * off.  

This has already been tried - and failed.

The *INFERIOR ONES* are trapped.

Perhaps you meant AMD.

Quote:

>-----=  Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News  =-----
>http://www.veryComputer.com/ - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> Check out our new Unlimited Server. No Download or Time Limits!
>-----==  Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers!  ==-----

--

Charlie

Quote:> This sentence doesn't make any sense to me.
> If I had used Windows instead of Linux for my 5 computer home
> network, the cost of my entire configuration would've increased
> at least 50%.  Once you choose and pay for a closed source
> operating system like Windows, in many cases, you're also
> forced to pay for closed source applications.

Per Intel, the big savings was in using Intel-based hardware
instead of HP or Sun workstations/servers.  Since this was
for design automation etc. they're replacing *nix machines.

Quote:> I think Intel just made this statement just to not offend
> Microsoft.  They're afraid if they back Linux too much,
> Bill Gates and his cohorts will put their muscle behind
> some other alternative microprocessor like the PowerPC.

You have to understand this in the context of Intel history.
Several years ago they declared that within a fairly short
time frame, they would be running *all* of their internal
software, design automation especially, on NT.  It never
happened, for a number of reasons.  Those familiar with
Intel history will see this as Intel hinting that this is the first
step towards a common internal software platform.

Am I the only one who sees something in the fact that although
this has been going on for over a year, Intel actually made a
*press* *announcement* about it the week after MS did the
XP circus act?

--
| Microsoft: "A reputation for releasing inferior software will make |
| it more difficult for a software vendor to induce customers to pay |
| for new products or new versions of existing products."            |

Quote:> Intel has a sweetheart deal with Microsoft.  It wouldn't surprise me if
> Intel paid less for a W2K server license with unlimited CALs than what
> you'd pay for a retail copy of XP home edition.  Anyway, a lot of their
> stuff is run by green-badgers (contractors) and those costs are fixed
> regardless of the server OS.

Intel is a company, that (like IBM) is run by grown-ups.  Intel has an
institutional memory that goes back to the beginnings of the
semiconductor industry, because although the company wasn't in
existence then its founders brought experience with them.  They
remember the past and learn from it; they plan not in months but
in years and decades.

Intel remembers being pushed around by Microsoft in the early 90s;
see Judge Jackson's _Findings_of_Fact_ for details.  Intel also
knows that every dollar that goes to Redmond is a dollar that isn't
going to either grow the market or to hardware manufacturers,
Intel especially.

Where Intel is concerned, Microsoft has become a liability.  Don't
expect them to show their hand early, but when cards hit the table
pay close attention.

--
| Microsoft: "A reputation for releasing inferior software will make |
| it more difficult for a software vendor to induce customers to pay |
| for new products or new versions of existing products."            |

Nope.

That is as clear a vote of 'no confidence' in XP as I have ever seen.

Mart
(sorry for the <AOL /> post)
--
A dirty mind is a joy forever
Its sleaziness will never cease

Note the reason for the cost savings - UNIX takes another hit,
not M$-based servers:
"The company ditched expensive Unix servers with proprietary Unix
software and replaced them with cheaper servers equipped with
Intel's own chips that run Linux software."

The shift to Intel-based hardware running LINUX was underway the
last time I worked there, although slow moving.  The Napster-like
p2p sharing, and its cost savings are peanuts to Intel, BUT they
have always been a peanut-saving kind of company.  A couple
hundred thou her, a couple there, and pretty soon you are talking
REAL money :)

ALSO NOTE: "The Linux servers are used in the engineering and
scientific departments of Intel. The company's business lines,
which rely on accounting software and other office software,
still use Microsoft's Windows 2000 as the operating system of
choice.

There are not enough robust office software packages that run
under Linux, he said."

(Keep an eye on Star Office!)

"In any case, using Linux is not much cheaper than Windows 2000.
Although Linux is free, the real costs are related to the
computers, as well as support and maintenance, he said."

YUP ... "free" software still has to be tested, rolled out, and
configured and supported corporation-wide.  But if (or as soon
as) the cost/benefit ration is favorable, expect LINUX on the
desktops.  

Tsu Dho Nimh

A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.

1. You do not have the negotiating power of Intel.  You pay
retail and they don't.

2. You are not supporting thousands of office staff 24/7/365.
Intel is.

Tsu Dho Nimh

A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.

  Most of the servers I encountered there were running LINUX or
NT, with the switch to LINUX underway.  The only servers with M$
stuff that were (a couple of years ago) untouchable were running
some crapware that could supposedly search non-HTML files.  This
p2p file sharing would knock a hole in that need.

Quote:>Anyway, a lot of their
>stuff is run by green-badgers (contractors) and those costs are fixed
>regardless of the server OS.

  Yeah, we don't work cheap.

Tsu Dho Nimh

A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.

There seems to be a gentle trend towards Linux now which is probably
unstoppable, but there's no doubt that if someone makes a big jump,
the Microsoft will be irritated and will feel that they should take
action.  Those companies not 'aligned' with Microsoft, such as IBM and
Sun are able to overtly support free software and linux, those companies
with a strong business dependency on Microsoft, like Compaq, Intel, Dell
and so on will not risk upsetting Microsoft.

Of course, every time a company like Intel release a Linux compiler,
then a company like Dell can make available a Linux server preloaded,
and so it will go on, until Microsoft find themselves no longer the
key business relationship of at least some of these companies.  When
that point comes, their monopoly leverage has been cracked, although
they are likely to keep their desktop * for considerably
longer.  The chants will become 'we no longer require a prime
relationship with Dellpaq computers', 'we welcome competition', 'we
are innovating at a far higher rate than ever before', 'our next OS
release will regain that market share', or perhaps 'we are focussing
on our specialise market segments', and so on.

Once the preload market has been opened for other OSes, it's only a
matter of time before there is real choice available to all consumers,
and we can exit from the dark-ages of the mid 80s to 90s (wow, 15 years
of * - amazing!)

Why do I feel like I've seen this kind of thing before?

--
Mark Kent
                                               Take out the ham to mail me.

Regardless of what Intel's negotiating power is, they
still have to spend money buying proprietary software,
whereas I never had to spend a dime.

Even if Intel has enormous discounts buying software
they still can't beat a zero price.

Quote:

> 2. You are not supporting thousands of office staff 24/7/365.
> Intel is.

That's not even relevant.  All of my computers
just use one file server.  All my installing is
done only on one computer, and the rest of the machines
are nothing more than RedHat 7.1 installed in the
default configuration, plus an NIS map to access
all the installed applications via NFS.

For fault tolerance all I do is backup my main
file server on 3 other backup servers, if the main
server goes down, I just swap the machine reload
the file server, and I'm still running.  Not as
nice as a fully fault tolerant system, but it's
simple to figure out and configure.

-----=  Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News  =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
 Check out our new Unlimited Server. No Download or Time Limits!
-----==  Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers!  ==-----

How things have changed since I was a VAX weenie.  Seems like only
yesterday I was watching a handful of DEC cabinets being rolled out to make
space for roomfuls of WinNT servers.  One thing you gotta give credit to
Intel for, though... they like eating their own dogfood.

Quote:>>Anyway, a lot of their
>>stuff is run by green-badgers (contractors) and those costs are fixed
>>regardless of the server OS.
>   Yeah, we don't work cheap.

True.  I woulda lost money going blue.

Yes, and the Ace is the Itanium.  If, and thats' a big IF, Compaq ports
OpenVMS and Tru64 over to the Itanium, Intel can then breath a little
easier. On the other hand, and under the table, Gates is stacking the
deck and stuffing sleeves.