wINfo
The evidence is obvious if you read the article about Intel cutting 11% of it's global workforce which is a big deal. This was due to the declining PC business which for Intel is primarily part of the Windows ecosystem and the need to restructure to focus on mobile, IoT and servers which is part of the Linux/UNIX ecosystem of devices.
> To begin with, Intel didn't lose an opportunity to get a lead in mobile because of their views on Linux/UNIX. None of the players today have a "lead" in mobile because of Unix. They have a lead because of the touch-based front-end. It wouldn't have mattered what that was running on.
Microsoft pushed it's Windows first strategy which meant focusing on laptops/desktops and Intel's core devices business was tied deeply into this strategy after years of close collaboration. All of the Windows based mobile devices failed miserably. Microsoft struggled to port Windows to ARM which didn't work that well. This didn't leave any real opportunity for Intel to get into mobile in the early days, it had to choose between it's relationship with Microsoft or breaking out into a new direction and embracing other partners and it did not do this.
Even if you look at the ultrabook that was a byproduct of Intel's work with Apple on the MacBook. That kind of innovation just wasn't possible with Microsoft because their strategy was contrary to where the market was headed. There was a huge opportunity to push a Linux based mobile/desktop hybrid but Intel never made an effort to move into that direction.
> Furthermore, Windows is responsible for creating numerous multi-billion dollar industries and Windows obviously holds a ton of value for businesses that Linux can't even compete with. That's why just about every business runs Windows and not Linux.
In the past it "created" value but that's irrelevant to businesses as they are concerned with future value. This is what Intel is doing here in their restructuring re-focusing away from "what things were 5 years ago" to "where things are now and where they are going".
> The willfully obliviousness of nix fanboys like you is boring.
Like I said in my earlier comment, there is this irrational defensive thought process when it comes to Windows and you demonstrate that perfectly.
The Windows ecosystem has become corrosive to any industry or company it touches. We now see the end results of supporting a closed-source legacy platform is 12,000 jobs at Intel due to the lack of excitement and innovation in the PC space. Perhaps Linux will revive the PC market but in the meantime Intel and their peers at nVidia/AMD have done little to make that a reality in the mainstream sense.
But you want your mdfind and Spotlight so you have to be okay with giving up ZFS or another enterprise-class Linux/UNIX file-system!
> Budding engineers are talented and eager to learn. And schools are right — their job is to educate, not to train. The duty of cultivating talent lies with employers.
The "tech talent shortage" is a result of the failure of colleges to actually deliver the vocational training services they advertise. Students invest huge sums of money and take on unsustainable student loan debt to pay colleges to "educate" them and adequately train them in a profession. Why is it unreasonable for employers to expect that colleges take on the burden of "making engineers"?
In a labor market you need to have a properly functioning supply and demand side to ensure that market is efficient. In our economy the demand side (students, employers) is highly functional, innovative and more creative than ever. Yet the supply side (colleges) is both backward and highly dysfunctional.
The college's reckless freewheeling management of the supply side of the market is leading to dangerous levels of student loan debt which is a huge risk to our entire financial system.