Intel Says Clover Trail Atom CPU Won't Work With Linux 434
girlmad tips this news from the Inquirer:
"Intel's Clover Trail Atom processor can be seen in various non-descript laptops around IDF and the firm provided a lot of architectural details on the chip, confirming details such as dual-core and a number of power states. However Intel said Clover Trail 'is a Windows 8 chip' and that 'the chip cannot run Linux.' While Intel's claim that Clover Trail won't run Linux is not quite true — after all, it is an x86 instruction set, so there is no major reason why the Linux kernel and userland will not run — given that the firm will not support it, device makers are unlikely to produce Linux Clover Trail devices for their own support reasons."
They've got it backwards. (Score:5, Insightful)
Chips aren't exactly designed to "run Linux" or any other OS. It's Linux that supports CPUs.. NOT the other way around.
All this means, is that Intel doesn't want to help. It does not mean it won't run Linux. Linux always finds a way to work.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I am sure you didn't mean any disrespect, but the whole "Linux always finds a way to work" irks me. Linux doesn't fine a way, some extremely talented and hard working individuals spend vast amounts of their time building/designing/testing code to support hardware. It's not magical.
Again, I am sure you didn't mean anything negative by your comment, but I have seen this perspective become pervasive an I'd like it stop.
Re:They've got it backwards. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:They've got it backwards. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:They've got it backwards. (Score:5, Funny)
Imagine a Beowulf cluster of them.
Re:They've got it backwards. (Score:5, Funny)
A beowulf cluster of Linux-powered Velociraptors? I'd pay good money to see that. From a safe distance.
Re: (Score:2)
No distance is safe.
Re: (Score:2)
No distance is safe.
Well, there's always from orbit.
Re: (Score:2)
But how can you be sure?
Re:They've got it backwards. (Score:5, Funny)
But how can you be sure?
There's only one way.
Re:They've got it backwards. (Score:5, Funny)
it IS magic. you really can get new kernels for hardware that has no docs released. you simply cat from /dev/skyfairy. a new kernel is given to you if the skyfairy device thinks you are worthy.
Re:They've got it backwards. (Score:5, Funny)
#!/bin/sh /dev/urandom /dev/skyfairy
# million monkeys sky fairy code generator
ln -s
dd if=/dev/skyfairy of=/boot/bzImage bs=1k count=3000
reboot
Re:They've got it backwards. (Score:5, Funny)
You have to do a "mknod /dev/tooth bp" for /dev/skyfairy to create the new kernel. The temporary device is deleted after the kernel creation is completed.
On some versions of Linux 3.x, you may need to init /dev/tooth for /dev/skyfairy to work correctly. Do read the man page.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
no (Score:2)
That's not how it's worded from the article. They could have said "it's not designed to support linux", not "it wont' run on linux".
Re: (Score:2)
Chips aren't exactly designed to "run Linux" or any other OS.
To be pedantic, most processors are designed to run an OS, in that they have features that are specifically required for the way operating systems are implemented. Support for things like privilege levels for example.
Re: (Score:3)
Normaly, one of the first things a processor designer does after defining an architecture is porting gcc to it (AKA adds Linux support).
No, "making GCC generate code for a given processor" is not also known as "adding support to Linux for that processor"; for example, making GCC generate code for a given processor does not magically add processor-specific support code, such as code to support the processor's MMU, to the Linux kernel for that processor.
Qui Bono? (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't see what possible benefit it is to Intel to deliberately limit the market for their processors. Unless they are doing this for Microsoft's benefit, in which case, surely, there are anti-trust implications?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
calling them tablets and smartphones instead of computers is the biggest ruse in recent computer history... why didn't ms think of it in '90s? they should have started calling their operating system a system runner.
Re: (Score:2)
could simply be to let MS get a time lead over linux. that could be all it is.
maybe it takes 6mos to get linux kernel, devices and i/o working. that's a full 6mos that MS can brag and sell their new hot hardware and get at least some people to buy that might not otherwise do so.
maybe its 3mos. who knows. but its a time lead. and that, alone, could be enough for MS to be happy.
if you are ok waiting a bit, linux does seem to get people to port this and that and eventually enough stuff works that its now
Re:Qui Bono? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Two reasons:
1. If Intel can use this processor to reestablish the Windows-Intel monopoly, then it will be a great move for Intel. This may be an attempt for Intel to throw a bone to Microsoft.
2. These processors might be very competitive in terms of processing power / watt. Intel may want to protect their Xeon server processor revenues. A Beosulf cluster of these processors may have a formidable amount of processing power.
Anything can run linux (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Anything can run linux (Score:5, Insightful)
All intel has done now is simply issued a challenge...
Well, that's not all they've done. They've also pissed away a lot of karma with the Linux community.
"Won't Work" ? - that's just a way of being cute (Score:2)
I first met it with OS/2 rather than Linux when I was using internet banking in its early days. I rang the bank Help Desk (about a technical matter not a financial one) and it came out that I was on OS/2. "But Sir" they said "it doesn't run on OS/2, you have to use Windows!"
They were so shocked, as if I were
Sorry : swap the words Technical and Financial (Score:2)
Really, Linux won't (currently) support CT (Score:5, Informative)
So, as an aside, isn't the entire point of a tech aggregator to provide a technical summary? Not just copy and paste the article's summary... anyway...
FTFA:
Intel went to great lengths to highlight the new P-states and C-states in which it can completely shut down the clock of a core. The firm said the operating system needs to provide "hints" to the processor in order to make use of power states and it seems likely that such hints are presently not provided by the Linux kernel in order to properly make use of Clover Trail.
In other words, Intel has added new capabilities to Clover Trail that allow enhanced power management, and Linux doesn't currently support it. Anyone who thinks that this will continue to be the case for much longer is a moron, especially if Intel continues to release its architecture datasheets, which we have no reason to think that they won't.
The article really says: It can't run Linux because there's no support for it in Linux, and there's no support for it because it's literally brand-new.
Re:Really, Linux won't (currently) support CT (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I hope so (for them) because "it can't run Linux" means "no Android devices with our chip". That's a huge market to leave to the competition.
Quick, what is the total global sales volume for FY2011 for devices with x86-compatible processors which run Android?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Really, Linux won't (currently) support CT (Score:5, Insightful)
They stated this is a windows 8 only chip. So they won't release specs for other operating systems to use this. Also since windows 8 'require's' the uefi secure boot option, how much do you want to bet intel made Clover trail boards 'won't' support either disabling it nor adding your own keys?
This won't stop linux dev's. Saying something can't work is a challenge to some of them. it's just intel won't provide patches for the in kernal systems to get it running, they might even go as far as to stop such patches being added if they actually 'did' make an agreement with microsoft to make this a 'windows 8 only' chip.
Re: (Score:2)
This definitely has something to do with Microsoft. Remember all those Netbooks running Linux? They would n't want that happening again, especially now that Microsoft want to be like Apple in the table space. Maybe the WinTel allience is n't dead afterall.
Re:Really, Linux won't (currently) support CT (Score:5, Funny)
Bringing reason into a discussion about Windows vs. Linux *AND* actually reading the article?!?!
Sir, I demand you surrender your Slashdot membership card!
Re:Really, Linux won't (currently) support CT (Score:5, Interesting)
In that case, the article summary was currect. Yeah, Clover Trail is an x86 CPU, but it has certain new power management states that have to be software driven, presumably w/ new instructions. Since Linux currently doesn't make use of them (I'm assuming that Intel worked w/ MS to ensure that Windows 8 does), if a vendor puts Linux on top of it w/o customizing it for this CPU, then it won't take advantage of the power management techniques. As a result, such a tablet will gouge more power than it would running Windows 8, and that's why Intel currently doesn't want to support it.
Once the next version of the Linux kernel - be it 3.5 or 3.6 - adds support for the Clover Trail instructions in its power management schemes, this CPU too will support Linux. The other possibility - Intel may be waiting for Android or Tizen to support this platform before it confirms that this CPU can run Linux.
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, Intel has added new capabilities to Clover Trail that allow enhanced power management, and Linux doesn't currently support it. Anyone who thinks that this will continue to be the case for much longer is a moron
Oddly, Linux still doesn't seem to have proper power management support for my Athlon 64 L110 processor (mobile, 1.2GHz) which is now very fucking old.
Re: (Score:2)
I hope, someone will get fired over that statement (Score:4, Interesting)
It is the first time ever that Intel announced direct hostility toward some piece of software -- I hope, it's just someone's fuckup and not a policy change.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. In my (relatively limited) experience, Intel's wireless chipsets work much better with Linux than other manufacturer's, and though I could be wrong, I'm pretty sure it's because they actually develop their Linux drivers alongside their Windows drivers. If they changed this policy, then I seriously fret for the state of wireless support in Linux. I, too, sincerely hope it's someone's fuckup.
Lintel (Score:2)
Not only that, Intel actually originally developed Meego b'cos Windows 7 did not support the Atom. Now of course, it's Tizen.
I think that seeing Microsoft porting Windows 8 to ARM, they decided to come out w/ a CPU that rivals it in power management, and got Microsoft to support this. They may be targeting their initial production of this CPU @ Windows RT tablets & phones, in which case, Linux may be on the backburner. Once the Linux kernel supports it, then they can make it one of the target platfo
Computing from a few, like petrol ? (Score:2)
Computer, especially smartphone and tablet are now a cash cow business. The happy few that have the biggest money will do anything to stop the flow of money to them. All of us will have a single choice: to pay them no matter what. Look like how the giant petrol companies are doing business.
Please, notify the European Commission (Score:3)
Please, notify the European Commission.
I am positively sure they will not like this.
(I don't have any appropriate channels, otherwise I would have done it)
I guess we now know the answer to the question (Score:3)
how, in a media swamped with Apple mania, do you get attention for a processor launch?
highly doubt that (Score:2)
Provided the linux kernel is used in android and that intel tries so much to enter the android market, I highly doubt that their new power efficient chip wont work with linux. It would mean they won't ship it in android as well.
Sounds like BS (Score:5, Interesting)
Is there any source for this statement besides The Inquirer? They're basically a tech tabloid and have gotten a lot of things wrong (or overly sensationalized) in the past. I checked Anandtech and Tom's Hardware, both of which covered Intel's presentations this week. No mention of this. I did a Google search for "clover trail" "Windows 8 chip" and found ONLY the Inquirer article and other articles and blog posts directly quoting and linking to it. No reliable third-party tech sites saying the same thing.
This doesn't make sense in terms of Intel's overall philosophy. They have always been good about Linux support for nearly everything else – they don't want to get themselves tied in too closely with Microsoft, for fear that this would reduce their leverage.
I think this story is bullshit. A generous interpretation would be that the reporter heard that the chip ran Windows 8 and that Linux *currently* did not have the necessary support for the "new P-states and C-states" in Clover Trail, and misinterpreted that as saying that only Windows 8 will ever be officially supported. A less generous interpretation is that the Inquirer knowingly made up this crap to get more page hits. In any case, I expect Intel to make their actual position clear soon enough, now that this story seems to have gone viral.
Re:Sounds like BS (Score:4, Informative)
I did a Google search for "clover trail" "Windows 8 chip" and found ONLY the Inquirer article and other articles and blog posts directly quoting and linking to it.
I did a Google search for
"clover trail" linux site:intel.com
and found a press release from June 2012 [intel.com] that said "The company has 20 design wins based on the forthcoming 32nm Intel® Atom SoC, codenamed “Clover Trail,” and designed for Microsoft* Windows* 8."
"Designed for Microsoft Windows 8" could mean anything from "we designed it to be incapable of running anything other than Windows 8" to "our design target was Windows 8 tablets but if it runs other OSes that'd be just fine with us (but maybe that's unlikely because, for example, Android for tablets is mainly being used on ARM so maybe no manufacturer will care about using it to run anything else)" to "we designed it so that it would run Windows 8 better than earlier designs".
Re:Sounds like BS (Score:4, Interesting)
Is there any source for this statement besides The Inquirer?
Yes [arstechnica.com].
Interestingly, the Ars Technical piece in question doesn't directly quote anybody from Intel saying Clover Trail “cannot run Linux”, they just say that the Inquirer reported that an Intel spokesperson at the Intel Developer Forum made that statement. What the Ars Technica piece reports from IDF is
so maybe 1) you can't run on Clover Trail without using the advanced power management features and 2) the documentation of those features won't be public (Intel have had documented-but-not-publicly-documented hardware features in the past), in which case Clover Trail won't be able to run Linux unless and until the features in question are reverse-engineered (and maybe there are Intel and/or Microsoft patents on those features to get in the way of doing that).
Or maybe not. Perhaps, for example, the features aren't required, but Linux-on-Clover-Trail will run the battery down faster if it doesn't use them.
Big deal... (Score:2)
...I've already got an AMD board that won't run Linux.
smart ploy! (Score:2, Interesting)
They tried building their own Linux distro. It sucked!
They tried giving docs and nobody cared.
They tried writing drivers themselves and again they sucked.
So now they are double daring every developer saying win8 is technically better than anything they coded
Re:smart ploy! (Score:5, Informative)
They tried writing drivers themselves and again they sucked.
Dead wrong. Intel drivers are excellent and I and many others have had great success with them. They also usually work quite closely with the kernel community as a whole to make sure things work as expected; that's why what this article is saying seems to out of character for Intel. For instance, try searching for "intel.com" [kernel.org] in the git commit log. Lots of kernel developers are on Intel's payroll, including core people like Alan Cox [wikipedia.org].
Of course it won't run Linux (Score:2)
The chip embeds a new silicon technology that will recognize Linux by efficiency of code to be executed.
If that'll be too much efficient, then the chip will melt itself.
even iPhone can run Linux (Score:2)
There must be a special subsystem on the die that checks if the OS ID is linux-gnu and annihilates itself in a puff of smoke if it is so.
PowerVR SGX (Score:3, Insightful)
I think this mostly due to the PowerVR SGX graphics engine (remember the gma500 poulsbo). for the gma500 intel made a binary linux driver that did not impress anyone. I guess for clovertrail they are just not bothering with releasing a binary driver.
So it might work fine as a CPU, but have no graphics acceleration. however for a tablet chip that cannot play video or composite a desktop in software, it might be effectively useless.
Re:antitrust issues? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:antitrust issues? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:antitrust issues? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:antitrust issues? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
You could do that because that code was disabled in the production version - though still present.
For the technical details see this fine article [drdobbs.com].
Re: (Score:3)
Re:antitrust issues? (Score:4, Informative)
Well, I never thought I'd be standing up for Microsoft, at least a little, But IMHO they had at least a LITTLE justification for putting up the warning message. Old Windows HAD to make MANY patches into the DOS resident code, and it depended on MANY undocumented data areas inside the DOS resident code. Any DOS clone, if it was to have a chance of running Windows, had to be very carefully engineered to match all those undocumented locations in DOS. The odds of Digital Research being able to guess all the exact locations that Windows depends on, and will depend on, is somewhat slight.
Re: (Score:3)
No, I remember it well, and it was a specific check to print the scary message and do nothing else. It was quite clearly marketing driven, not a lick of technological reasoning behind it.
Re:antitrust issues? (Score:4, Insightful)
"Intel is just not going the extra step to allow Linux compatibility"
According to TFA: However Intel said Clover Trail "is a Windows 8 chip" and that "the chip cannot run Linux".
That's not saying "We won't support it" that's LYING IN MARKET about the capabilities of its chip and causing direct harm to a competing kernel and subset of operating systems based upon that kernel.
Re:antitrust issues? (Score:5, Informative)
No, that's not what TFA says:
"The firm said the operating system needs to provide "hints" to the processor in order to make use of power states and it seems likely that such hints are presently not provided by the Linux kernel in order to properly make use of Clover Trail."
I doubt this will be very difficult for Linux to put into the kernel.
Re: (Score:3)
If it has an incompatible memory model, it wouldn't be x86 anymore, would it?
Re: (Score:3)
Your comprehension must not be up to par, sir. Anyone should know I'm talking about Intel's claim that "This will not run Linux" and "This is a Windows 8 Chip" means linux kernel vs Microsoft kernel.
Somebody's skills aren't up to par; I'd vote for the person who spoke of "a competing kernel" without indicating why Intel would care about two competing kernels when they make neither and have supported both and without bringing up collusion - the only thing that could be at issue here would be collusion between Microsoft and Intel, so I don't think anybody could go after Intel alone on an anti-trust issue, they'd have to go after both Intel and Microsoft.
(I'm also a bit skeptical that any antitrust auth
Re:antitrust issues? (Score:5, Insightful)
Intel and Microsoft teaming up to herd the masses (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:antitrust issues? (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's say the reason is either one.
Let's say that Intel wants to limit the audience for the chip, and cut their own sales. Let's say that AMD, VIA, and the ARMs makers will be delighted to fill in any vacuum.
Do.We.Care?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:antitrust issues? (Score:4, Insightful)
You know that this is a processor, right? A processor is something that you use at both phones,tablets, netbooks, notebooks, desktops, workstations and servers. Also, all of those categories are fuzzy, and processors do leak to the neigboring ones.
For the looks of it, this one is a tablet's processor. On tablets, iOS has most of the market, Linux is a minority and Windows does not even mark outside of the error margin, that last OS is the one Intel is going to support. Of course, it will leak to netbooks and notebooks, where Windows rules (but is losing space fast for OS-X).
I have no idea why Intel would even make such a decision, and I doubt AMD, VIA, or ARM management agree with it. From the public info it just doesn't make any sense, there must be something Intel is hidding.
Re: (Score:3)
For a comparable example, look at the Raspberry Pi. On one hand, it's a cheap SBC intended to run Linux. But the SoC itself has huge parts without public documentation, and anybody trying to write open drivers for it is going to have a huge challenge ahead. For now, it's "Broadcom's buggy .ko binaries, or nothing at all."
It's probably safe to say that someone will almost certainly find a way to run Linux on this chip. What they probably WON'T be able to do is take advantage of the chip's full capabilities,
Re:antitrust issues? (Score:5, Funny)
I think I could count on one hand the number of Windows 8 users worldwide and I think that 7 of them are bored with it.
My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die.
Re: (Score:3)
Any programmer worth their salt can count to at least 31 on one hand, and 1023 on two hands.
Re:antitrust issues? (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually it means Intel won't support running Linux on it.
Apparently Wintel is alive and well.
Re: (Score:2)
The article is less than an A4 page in length. That is the short version.
Re:antitrust issues? (Score:4, Interesting)
actually, parent is correct. There are antitrust issues to be investigated here. This has nothing to do with choosing to support something or not, and is a very bad move by intel. If it were choosing they would say "this processor is not designed for linux" not "this processor will not *work* with linux". Sounds small, but it's of critical importance. The reality is that the antitrust issue is not with Intel - it is with Microsoft.
Why should anyone use the x86 instruction set if they're explicitly saying that things are not compatible? All they're trying to say to people is "please use ARM", which is not the smartest idea. That is entirely different from what intel is implying, which is that the BIOS issues regarding windows 8 preventing other operating systems from running...that issue from before.
So all this is, is basically antitrust fodder against MS.
Re:antitrust issues? (Score:4, Insightful)
There aren't any antitrust issues here. Intel can do whatever it wants with it's processors so long as it doesn't use it's processors (I'm not even sure you could call Intel a monopoly in processors, but that would be for a court to decide) to give another of their products an unfair advantage.
Pretty much the same for Microsoft. Unless you think somehow Microsoft strong armed Intel into it, and can prove it in court. Even then it would be difficult. You would have to prove that Microsoft abused it's monopoly position in OSes to do so in a way that harms consumers. Good luck with that.
Re:antitrust issues? (Score:5, Insightful)
"There aren't any antitrust issues here."
Bullshit, Intel is falsely advertising that a chip with all the standard (for today) x86 instructions will not run Linux, which is an x86 compatible kernel, and says that the chip is for Windows 8. Intel is colluding with Microsoft in this instance to create an anticompetitive market.
FALSE ADVERTISING IS STILL ILLEGAL AND AN ANTITRUST ISSUE WHEN A CONVICTED MONOPOLIST IS INVOLVED.
Re: (Score:3)
There aren't any antitrust issues here. Intel can do whatever it wants with it's processors so long as it doesn't use it's processors ... to give another of their products an unfair advantage.
Not true. The range of Anti-Trust includes oligarchic rings. If Intel purposely altered the chip by examining instructions that Linux calls but Windows 8 Metro doesn't, and "conveniently" removes/alters those instructions, it's anti-trust. It's a variant on collusion. If you have multiple parties of overlapping busines
Re: (Score:3)
Re:antitrust issues? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Do you even know what you are talking about or is your only response to levy insults at other people? I would think someone with your low UID would know better.
First of all if you even remotely looked at my posts, you would see I'm no fan of MS. I believe they should have been broken up. Second if you read or understood the case against MS, the government went after MS for PCs not computers in general as they don't have a monopoly on servers, especially Unix/Linux servers. Also having a monopoly is not p
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
This is completely irrelevant, and AMD does not make low-power x86 chips anymore.
They most certainly do. On the very low side, they make Geode. In the middle end (for low power) they have Semprons at 8 watts. They also have a varieety of SOC.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't be dull. The problem isn't that Intel may decide not to support Linux but that Intel may be creating a vertical agreement with Microsoft, viz.:
Intel said Clover Trail 'is a Windows 8 chip'
Re: (Score:2)
No. The offence is making the false claim that it will not run Linux.
Re: (Score:3)
if it's a win8 only chip, it quite possibly includes the damn "Trusted Boot" feature that MS wants on all hardware with UEFI. This means that unless the fucking bootloader and OS is blessed by MS, it wont run.
Now if this is only for those Win8 Tablets and such that MS wants to get to market, then the chip may well run Linux or any other OS that's x86 based though w/o the blessings of Intel. Another issue is that Intel May restrict sales of this to OEM's with a minimum of 10k per order. Another possibility i
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
UEFI secure boot with MS keys hardwired, perhaps?
Oh wait, the Windows logo specs say it must be optional for x86.
Re: (Score:3)
And, yes, I know OS X and Linux share a common heritage.
What color is the sky in your world? They're both Unixlike but that's as far as that goes. Linux is descended from Minix and runs a GNU userland. OSX is descended from NeXTStep which is descended from BSD. They are almost as different and differently-descended as they could be and still be able to run much of the same code without major changes.
Re: (Score:2)