> Ok, I'm going to take this subject by the horns and ask/address it now.
>
> Merced is being "pre-developed" under and NDA+cash, and Linux can live like
> that. PC98 is IIRC, a MS/Intel spearheaded spiel that is another closed
> architecture. Then there's Slot 1/2, and other such stuff.
Linux can, and, I suspect, will, be ported to Merced in when released and
an assembler can be hacked together for it.
>
> So the question is this:
>
> I run Linux, Linux us all that matters AFA OSes go, to me. If the major
> computer companies can afford to license and develop for these closed
> architectures, and MS Windows is the only real thing that matters in the
> "business"[1] world, is Linux going to run on these architectures, or are
> the manufacturers going to have to open the architectures?
Intel is in the business of selling processors, not (necessarily) crowning
one or another OS as "the" OS. If Intel's managers see that a significant
market emerges for one of its products, they will not care if that market
does not run Windows. Microsoft is powerful, have no doubt about that, but
they cannot dictate to Intel because they have no leverage over Intel.
What would MS say? "Don't sell to market "x" or we'll take our operating
system and go to another processor?" Nahh.
Kurt
-- The Third Step really means that I can't successfully plan a trip to the bathroom, much less run my life sanely.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu