Linked by Radio on Fri 1st Feb 2013 22:57 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 551230
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[3]: Return the laptop!
by darknexus on Sat 2nd Feb 2013 20:46
in reply to "RE[2]: Return the laptop!"
RE[4]: Return the laptop!
by TechGeek on Sat 2nd Feb 2013 20:57
in reply to "RE[3]: Return the laptop!"
"I would love to know why you got voted down.
Oh, come now, you already know why. I dared to criticize the amazing, wonderful, cannot possibly have any bugs, everyone should use it Linux. It's not cool to do that, even when it's true. "
You probably got voted down for being a troll. If you bothered to look through the links, you would see that even if that driver were the problem, it was provided by Samsung. Second, its not the driver itself as much as the way that the driver interacts with the totally non standard way Samsung handles the BIOS. Like I mentioned above, writing to non permanent memory should not be able to brick a laptop.
RE[3]: Return the laptop!
by segedunum on Sun 3rd Feb 2013 21:55
in reply to "RE[2]: Return the laptop!"
I would love to know why you got voted down.
Because, as usual, neither he nor you read.
The problem here is the device itself is doing things that only Samsung truly knows about, and it diverges away from any kind of reasonably expected behaviour. It's ACPI all over again. The Samsung kernel code was also built from Samsung's own code and yet it still fails.
Edited 2013-02-03 21:57 UTC





Member since:
2009-08-18
I would love to know why you got voted down.
It does seem likely at this stage that you are correct.
Edited 2013-02-02 16:23 UTC