4 ms·
It's portability vs usability. Linux runs on pretty much anything: from the smallest chips to the super computers. You can't make something that suits every use
by kbart 10y ago
It's portability vs usability. Linux runs on pretty much anything: from the smallest chips to the super computers. You can't make something that suits every use case perfectly, so in order to support such variety, compromises must be made. iOS/macOS runs only on a handful devices that were designed and build by a single company, it's not fair to compare the two.
- FreakyT 10y agoSo the funny thing is how well macOS works even when it doesn't have the right drivers. At one point I tried and failed to set up a Hackintosh on unsupported hardware, but I was shocked to find how good it looked even with the default VESA video driver! While Linux's VESA driver got tons of screen tearing issues and generally poor drawing speeds, Mac OS (this was 10.4) was sitting there drawing a fully composited desktop with no slowdowns whatsoever. At that same time, Linux required special graphics hardware with beta drivers to even get any form of desktop compositing working.
- massysett 10y agoYou are talking about the Linux kernel. Desktops (e.g. KDE, GNOME, Unity, etc) run practically exclusively on AMD64 systems that take the laptop or desktop form factor. What we've seen are ill-fated attempts to make those desktops work well on touch devices. That's what Unity was all about. On the other hand Apple has refused to make macOS run on touch screens.
- whatusername 10y agoRefused to release. I'm sure they have prototypes that "run" on touch screens.
- tapoxi 10y agoAll I really want are graphics drivers that don't need to be recompiled every time I update my kernel. Why is this such a hard problem?