Shutting Down Clear Linux OS

Clear Linux’s performance and user experience

• Widely regarded as one of the fastest Linux distros; even AMD reportedly used it in benchmarks.
• Users praise its stability and speed in production (e.g., multi‑year uptime on EPYC servers, Minecraft server performance, custom SteamOS builds).
• Others report bugs and driver instability even on Intel hardware (e.g., NUCs).
• Perceived performance gains attributed to aggressive compiler flags, transparent hugepages, function multi‑versioning, kernel tweaks, stateless/minimalist design, and “bloat removal,” not to Intel’s proprietary compiler.
• Some dispute claims of ultra‑fast boot; experiences range from sub‑10 seconds on other distros to ~30 seconds on Clear.

Shutdown handling and trust

• The “effective immediately” end of updates is criticized as irresponsible and damaging to user trust; users want a grace period to migrate before security patches stop.
• Several say this reinforces a general rule to avoid software that depends on a single corporation.

Intel’s layoffs, strategy, and software ecosystem

• Many tie the shutdown to large, ongoing Intel layoffs and cost‑cutting, not to Clear Linux’s technical value.
• Discussion of layoff practices: abrupt terminations vs. longer notice, sabotage/insider‑threat risk, legal protections (e.g., WARN Act, collective bargaining) in some jurisdictions.
• Layoffs are framed as EPS management and wage suppression, with concern about repeated rounds destroying morale and talent.
• Fear that this casts doubt on other Intel software (QAT, GPU drivers, MKL, Kata Containers, etc.), making developers hesitant to depend on them.
• Some argue Intel has a long “graveyard” of abandoned projects and is “cooked”; others note ongoing value in fabs and ecosystem contributions.

Corporate vs community projects and tech choice

• One camp advocates “boring” tech, Lindy‑effect picks (Debian, FreeBSD) to avoid rug pulls.
• Counterarguments: these choices have real costs (e.g., apt’s scripting model, slow container builds) and may delay adoption of genuinely transformative tech (e.g., Kubernetes).
• Debate over simple rules like “avoid corporate/VC projects”: some say they’re necessary; others note corporations fund major R&D and community projects can also stagnate.

Forks and alternatives

• Some predict a fork by ex‑maintainers; others doubt it without salaries and ongoing funding, citing fork fatigue.
• Users are now evaluating replacements (e.g., CachyOS, other fast distros) and, in some cases, reconsidering future Intel hardware purchases in favor of AMD.