Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 14th Sep 2012 22:30 UTC
Intel You'd think this sort of stuff belonged to the past - but no. Apparently, Microsoft is afraid of Android on its Windows 8 tablets, because Intel has just announced that it will provide no support for Linux on its clover Trail processors. Supposedly, this chip is "designed for Windows 8". What?
Thread beginning with comment 535239
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Comment by jigzat
by jigzat on Sat 15th Sep 2012 17:46 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by jigzat"
jigzat
Member since:
2008-10-30

Dude you just contradicted one post later:

"so basically GNU/Linux has to adapt itself to any hardware condition out there whether the hardware companies document it's hardware features or not, so there is nothing new here.


And do you think Windows or OSX doesn't have to? That the code to support the features manifests itself from the thin air?
"

"Since when has it even worked that direction?


Since forever. When a manufacturer wants to ensure their chips will be adopted quickly they often write the code needed and to also ensure there are as few bugs in the supporting code as possible.
"

"and is really bad for software developers like me because users are beginning to ask why do developers charge money for software when a big company like Google has so many free products and services (real life case)


If users questioning you is bad then the problem is on your end. A good developer knows how to answer that question.
"

Yes I deviated a bit from the main subject but that is no reason to do personal attacks. Yes I have managed to convince consumers, yet the fact that they are asking for price-free or price-free-supported software shows my point that Google is making software looks like a cereal box price.

Osnews I think there is troll in the forum.

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[3]: Comment by jigzat
by WereCatf on Sat 15th Sep 2012 18:00 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by jigzat"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Dude you just contradicted one post later:


No, I didn't: the code still has to be written by someone, no matter the OS. You were portraying the situation as if Windows and OSX do not need such, only Linux, something that is obviously not true.

Yes I deviated a bit from the main subject but that is no reason to do personal attacks.


Saying the problem is on your end is a personal attack?

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by jigzat
by jigzat on Sun 16th Sep 2012 03:00 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by jigzat"
jigzat Member since:
2008-10-30

"Dude you just contradicted one post later:


No, I didn't: the code still has to be written by someone, no matter the OS. You were portraying the situation as if Windows and OSX do not need such, only Linux, something that is obviously not true.
"

Yes you did when you putted Windows and Mac OS X relationship with hardware manufacturers to the same level as Linux (which is asymmetric) regarding hardware use and then you said that hardware manufacturers write the code when they want their chips are adopted.

Of course you are pointing the obvious (software is written by people) when a developer talks about support is talking about two things one the hardware features are openly or closely documented by the manufacturer and if the manufacturer itself provides some kind of software implementation (driver). Yes every OS development must accommodate to the underlying hardware but when I say adapt I'm talking about an asymmetric relationship with the manufacturer almost as an species adaptation to nature conditions.

GNU/Linux has always had an asymmetric relationship with Intel at least since Intel and Microsoft has been virtually always strategic partners and now with Apple too. To Intel Linux usage is not that important since it doesn't move that much hardware as Windows. Same thing goes to Nvidia and ATI. For Microsoft of course Linux is not a joke at all, it is a potential enemy( as Apple but they have some kind of arrangement).

Intel and Microsoft interest in some kind of hardware "protection" or vendor lock dates from like 10 years ago or more with the TCP A.K.A Palladium architecture and then with Intel's tryout with UEFI. The intention has been there for quite some time but they haven't been able to do so.

My point is that GNUL has always have a harsh relationship with some hardware vendors while Microsoft and Apple have a symmetric relationship with them, they get hardware ahead of everybody else, they even demand features and get specially optimized compilers while GNUL (developers) has to HACK the hardware and do reverse engineer to find out things that big vendors like Apple and Microsoft already know.

And for those who think that a HACK is bad thing, that is a wrong way of seeing things.

Yes Microsoft Windows was for quite some time a piece of crap but in order to keep that mess working the developers must be real bad asses, but that doesn't make Windows a HACK because all of their features were developed with formal methods and intervention of hardware vendors.

And as a final note, implying that only a good developer can give a satisfying answer to a consumer regarding why software cost money is a bold statement because people some people refuse to pay for software and that doesn't make developers bad.

Edited 2012-09-16 03:01 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1