Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 14th Sep 2012 22:30 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 535240
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: What a bunch of fud.
by jigzat on Sat 15th Sep 2012 17:56
in reply to "RE[3]: What a bunch of fud."
I don't know why people offend themselves when I call GNUL a Hack when GNUL developers consider themselves hackers.
If you look into GNUL history it has been a hack. Although it was not considered "Unix" they made it unix like and POSIX compliant, although it was not supported in some platforms they managed to make it work over them. There is no driver support no problem just change some lines in the kernel and compile. Although there was no kernel they managed to get a temporary kernel called Linux which it is still ticking despite being temporal.
That sounds like a hack to me. If you think a hack is bad then theres is nothing to discuss.
RE[4]: What a bunch of fud.
by UltraZelda64 on Sun 16th Sep 2012 01:31
in reply to "RE[3]: What a bunch of fud."




Member since:
2006-03-03
Basically bootloader, some drivers, etc... Imagine some graphic specific features like Optimus that are not documented and/or not driver provided, no ways to support them into one or another OS. That could lead to some OS having better support while nothing, technically, prevent them from.
And an OS like Linux being a hack, how can a company be comfortable and confident to an OS that is just a hack ? Do you believe a server could suffer stability issues and just answer "It's just a hack" ?
Kochise