Why does Intel support Linux?

On Jan 13, 2004, at 12:20 PM, Joe Toon wrote:

> Sure, the x86 was considered inferior to lots of RISC based chips.
> However, wouldn't you agree that effectively Microsoft is tied to
> chips that are either ia32 or backwards compatible with ia32 (ie the
> AMD64 chips)?

I sure would have agreed when I started this thread. I've since seen
comments from Intel insiders like Deepak that portray MS as the senior
partner in the Wintel alliance. If MS can dictate to Intel as Deepak
describes, then clearly MS doesn't need Intel to the extent that Intel
needs MS. We may not know what MS would have done had Intel simply
said 'this is the direction we are taking' but clearly Intel thought
they were capable of doing something.

I do take your point about if Intel thinks that Linux is the wave of
the future, at least at the high end, it's better to get aboard than to
get run over.