Talk:Intel

revert as press release? they should post this to the talk page :) 18.85.46.183 21:16, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

Quick question, should the $6 million donation be noted, or will it be returned? 65.101.230.211 11:38, 6 January 2008 (EST)

Intel had asked us not to speak publicly about the dollar figure of their membership fee. In fact, by the letter of the contract, Intel owes a non-refundable fee for 2008 that I presume will never be paid. --Walter 11:51, 6 January 2008 (EST)

Intel lost my good will. Don't they know that you can help children while still making a profit? They need not be mutually exclusive. Like Google, AMD, NewsCorp, RedHat, etc are doing now. 210.210.40.174 20:57, 6 January 2008 (EST)

It's kind-of hard for Intel. In my personal time and with my own money, I am a member of an open-source non-profit http://www.ofset.org/ ; and speaking for myself, I would love to contribute some educational material; it certainly is needed. But in my professional life, I work for one of these large hardware-software-and-services businesses, and I have access to source code for all sorts of things which are distributed commercially on an object-code-only basis. So, for various reasons, it's a lot simpler not to contribute code; and to just take what they distribute for personal use.

Attempting to sell against a signed contract is unprofessional. Intel should wait until after delivery (or until another contract is contemplated), and then attempt to sell.

How come Intel are in the 'chip' business and in the 'box' business ? Divesting the 'box' business ought to make a lot of sense.