Intel's Open Source Future in Question as Exec Says He's Done Carrying the Competition (theregister.com) 41
An anonymous reader shares a report: Over the years, Intel has established itself as a paragon of the open source community, but that could soon change under the x86 giant's new leadership. Speaking to press and analysts at Intel's Tech Tour in Arizona last week, Kevork Kechichian, who now leads Intel's datacenter biz, believes it's time to rethink what Chipzilla contributes to the open source community. "We have probably the largest footprint on open source out there from an infrastructure standpoint," he said during his opening keynote. "We need to find a balance where we use that as an advantage to Intel and not let everyone else take it and run with it."
In other words, the company needs to ensure that its competitors don't benefit more from Intel's open source contributions than it does. Speaking with El Reg during a press event in Arizona last week, Kechichian emphasized that the company has no intention of abandoning the open source community. "Our intention is never to leave open source," he said. "There are lots of people benefiting from the huge investment that Intel put in there." "We're just going to figure out how we can get more out of that [Intel's open source contributions] versus everyone else using our investments," he added.
In other words, the company needs to ensure that its competitors don't benefit more from Intel's open source contributions than it does. Speaking with El Reg during a press event in Arizona last week, Kechichian emphasized that the company has no intention of abandoning the open source community. "Our intention is never to leave open source," he said. "There are lots of people benefiting from the huge investment that Intel put in there." "We're just going to figure out how we can get more out of that [Intel's open source contributions] versus everyone else using our investments," he added.
He is right (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hopefully the focus on "themselves" doesn't come at the expense of their product. My experience with Intel has been that their hardware will always have good Linux drivers that don't require any fucking around with, unlike (for example) nVidia whose closed-source Linux drivers are a pain at best, often a downright shitshow.
Seems an ideologically-driven decision more than anything. I wonder how much of that is rubbing off from nVidia after their share purchase.
They'd better tread cautiously. (Score:4, Insightful)
Not sure what Intel contributes that they could change to closed source without harming themselves. Closed source doesn't make it into the Linux kernel and with very few exceptions doesn't make it into the Linux distros. I can think of few Intel product lines where that wouldn't be destructive to their market share.
Unclear on the concept (Score:1)
Guys... (Score:4, Interesting)
If intel pulls out of FOSS and AMD fixes their fucking wifi chip, I'll be all-in with AMD.
Also, conspiracy theory: this may be nvidia's weight being applied to future GPU driver modules since intel and nvidia will launch shared media chiplets in a few years.
Re: (Score:1)
I run Linux at home on a mix of AMD and Intel machines. But work is still mostly Intel.
If Intel stops supporting Linux, we can easily switch those work machines to AMD. We're not going to switch them to Windows just so we can stick to Intel CPUs.
Re: (Score:3)
>"Open source is the ONLY reason i buy intel"
^^^ THIS
Intel's contributions to Open Source most likely greatly returns on their relatively small investment in that effort. It creates good-will about their products and enables lots of people and companies to use their stuff with confidence in Linux and other FOSS. Intel doesn't have THAT much competition, and I doubt their few competitors are benefiting all that much from those contributions.
As an example, there is a very good reason I often specifically
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think AMD even make wifi chipsets themselves?
There's no reason a laptop with an AMD CPU/GPU couldn't use an Intel wifi chipset, many of them even come on minipcie cards and could be swapped over.
I suspect what you're seeing is the manufacturers cheaping out and using lousy chipsets because they can get away with it. Generally components are sold based on claimed specs rather than actual performance.
Two different chipsets might both support 802.11AX, but one might also support monitor mode, come with
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They collaborate with partners. So the silicon will be MediaTek or the like with some input from AMD.
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting question (Score:3)
Re: Interesting question (Score:3)
Change your Stardust on MySpace (Score:1)
Welcome to OSS (Score:4, Insightful)
Intel realizes what every other OSS dev has recently started complaining about⦠large companies using but contributing nothing back.
Eatting your cake and having it too. (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's the thing, Intel loves to be the one that sets the standard. They do because it provides them with a dominant position which they can then leverage. However, in order to do that, not only do you need to have an implementation, you need a reason for developers to give a shit about your implementation. If it can't be used for multiple platforms or if it's total shit for non-Intel chips then why the fuck would any developer use it?
Here's what's more likely to happen: Intel will develop it's own partially closed source libraries that are specifically optimized to their chips and nobody will use them.
The only viable alternative (that developer will actually use) is looking at existing APIs/frameworks and submitting optimizations for Intel chips. Doing so means you will not have the dominant position and can't be used as leverage.
Honestly, they could go with the compatibility route and it would be better for more people. However, I know Intel's greed and their greed is telling them to sabotage their own efforts which means later they will be surprised when their code is largely ignored.
Re:Eatting your cake and having it too. (Score:4, Funny)
Here's what's more likely to happen: Intel will develop it's own partially closed source libraries that are specifically optimized to their chips and nobody will use them.
Those who forget the Itanium are doomed to repeat it.
Here's an idea (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
is there any actual basis for this? (Score:3)
Yes Intel contributes a lot of code, but so what? How much of it is Intel-specific? I still remember how they made Moblin worthless on non Intel hardware, ensuring that nobody would use it. It died on the vine and its corpse became Meego which also died.
As a taxpayer I'm tired of carrying Intel (Score:3)
Disallow commercial use (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
That's not what open source means
Re: (Score:3)
They can dual-license stuff. Put it out under a strong GPL variant that's compatible with the Linux kernel yet distasteful to competitors seeking to profit from the work without giving back. And offer alternate, paid licenses to anyone who wants different use cases. Won't stop Chinese knockoffs, but I think Intel has enough lawyerpower to dissuade businesses in IP-law-abiding parts of the world violating their licenses.
This kind of smells like Broadcom, with the notoriously shit support for its SoCs and
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Have we all already forgotten about ElasticSearch and what Amazon did?
Re: (Score:2)
If you need a license to use it the way that you want it violates the principals of open source.
The concept is you should be able to receive the source code with the default license and use it as you wish. If you require extra licensing to use it as you wish it cannot be part of the ecosystem and is not open source.
Re: (Score:2)
Freedom 0: The freedom to run the program for any purpose.
Freedom 1: The freedom to study how the program works and change it to do what you want. Access to the source code is a prerequisite for this freedom.
Freedom 2: The freedom to redistribute copies so that you can help others.
Freedom 3: The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others. This allows you to give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes.
The proposal for non commercial use, license otherwise violates all
They want to ne Nvidia (Score:3)
They want to be Nvidia, I think Intel wants to lock-down their GPU and follow Nvidia's lead.
Right now, Intel's Video works great on the *BSDs, so my guess their someday new GPU will be locked-down just like Nvidia. If that happens, *BSDs will probably be SOL, especially OpenBSD.
BTW, I wish Linux would follow OpenBSD's lead when it comes to Nvidia, if they did we would not be seeing this. But Linux is now owned by the corporate world and does not care if the blobs they need to use could have hidden code that breaks your privacy.
Re: (Score:2)
BTW, I wish Linux would follow OpenBSD's lead when it comes to Nvidia, if they did we would not be seeing this. But Linux is now owned by the corporate world and does not care if the blobs they need to use could have hidden code that breaks your privacy.
I don't know that Nvidia would much care if it lost the Linux market share in the graphics sector. I don't see them having an emergency board meeting where they say "OMFG we're going to lose the 237 customers that rely our GPUs on Linux to AMD! Do something!"
Perhaps in the AI sector, at least until that bubble bursts -- if a competitor came out with something as capable as Nvidia hardware and with fully open drivers, that would likely get Nvidia to stand up and take notice. So long as there's no equivale
Re: (Score:3)
I don't know that Nvidia would much care if it lost the Linux market share in the graphics sector. I don't see them having an emergency board meeting where they say "OMFG we're going to lose the 237 customers that rely our GPUs on Linux to AMD! Do something!"
People buy Nvidia for more than just graphics. All those AI servers: probably most are running Linux.
Re: (Score:2)
People buy Nvidia for more than just graphics. All those AI servers: probably most are running Linux.
Right, but if all those users said "screw Nvidia and their binary blobs!," what would they use instead? That was the second half of my comment: The graphics space lacks enough user-base to force Nvidia play nice with Linux, and the AI/ML space lacks enough competition to force Nvidia to play nice with Linux.
Perhaps AMD or Huawei will steal their crown if the bubble floats long enough, but no one seems to be doing it yet.
It's Mr Hock Tan speaking (Score:2)
This is Intel CEO, Hock Tan, speaking.When you have an aggressive and combative CEO, executives at this man's level become flesh puppets channeling the CEO's business vision. Yes, a business needs vision but this behaviour is a bit sad because it harms creative thinking.
Yes, Intel could nickel and dime their open-source efforts. That is true but has little relevance. Intel fell behind in hardware. Focus on the hardware ocean Intel - not the little software boat floating on it.
Re: (Score:2)
Did Intel forget about Minix? (Score:2)
What OSS do they provide? (Score:2)