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 535290
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Comment by jigzat
by jigzat on Sun 16th Sep 2012 03:00 UTC 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

RE[5]: Comment by jigzat
by lemur2 on Sun 16th Sep 2012 07:37 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by jigzat"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

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.


In actual fact, there is less and less hardware these days which Linux kernel programmers have to reverse engineer.

Some companies, such as Intel, write open source drivers for Linux for their hardware.

http://www.intel.com/cd/corporate/icsc/apac/eng/teams/331393.htm
http://intellinuxgraphics.org/
http://software.intel.com/sites/oss/

http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2010/09/broadcom-releasing-fully-open-so...
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-source/broadcom-yes-broadcom-joins-t...
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-source/behind-the-open-source-turnar...

Some companies, such as AMD/ATI, provide programming specifications so that open source developers can write drivers for Linux:
http://www.x.org/docs/AMD/
http://www.x.org/wiki/RadeonFeature
http://www.linuxdriverproject.org/mediawiki/index.php/Main_Page#Abo...

"We are a group of Linux kernel developers (over 400 strong) that develop and maintain Linux kernel drivers. We work with the manufacturers of the specific device to specify, develop, submit to the main kernel, and maintain the kernel drivers. We are willing and able to sign NDAs with companies if they wish to keep their specifications closed, as long as we are able to create a proper GPLv2 compliant Linux kernel driver as an end result."

Some companies only go half-way to true GPL-copyleft open source, but developers can still write drivers for Linux:
http://www.malideveloper.com/developer-resources/drivers/open-sourc...

Linux drivers where the developers have to reverse-engineer hardware do still exist:
http://nouveau.freedesktop.org/wiki/FeatureMatrix
... but such drivers are most decidedly in the minority these days. It is a relatively simple matter to avoid hardware, such as nvidia graphics, which still require reverse-engineered drivers.

Edited 2012-09-16 07:55 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[6]: Comment by jigzat
by ilovebeer on Sun 16th Sep 2012 15:20 in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by jigzat"
ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

It is a relatively simple matter to avoid hardware, such as nvidia graphics, which still require reverse-engineered drivers.

Using Nvidia graphics cards in linux does NOT require reverse-engineered drivers. Nvidia provides 32 & 64 bit linux drivers, and communicates well with users to resolve bugs and add features/support.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[6]: Comment by jigzat
by Neolander on Mon 17th Sep 2012 09:28 in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by jigzat"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

"We are a group of Linux kernel developers (over 400 strong) that develop and maintain Linux kernel drivers. We work with the manufacturers of the specific device to specify, develop, submit to the main kernel, and maintain the kernel drivers. We are willing and able to sign NDAs with companies if they wish to keep their specifications closed, as long as we are able to create a proper GPLv2 compliant Linux kernel driver as an end result."

Wow. Just, wow.

"We Linux devs have finally managed to go far enough in market share that hardware vendors will care about us. Now that we are here, we don't care for the younger OSs that are struggling just like we did before anymore, and will gladly sign NDAs on specs so as to keep an edge on them"

Edited 2012-09-17 09:37 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3