2 ms·

Finding specifically that between the lines says more about your biases than the hidden implications. You seem focused on defending the reputation of Apple whe

Finding specifically that between the lines says more about your biases than the hidden implications. You seem focused on defending the reputation of Apple when pointing out the interface as proprietary is as much about highlighting the fact that a driver exists for it despite being proprietary as it is about disparaging uncooperative hardware vendors. The entire tone of the article is basically "The Linux kernel is so amazing not only is it still maintaining support for ancient hardware, it's proprietary hardware (and what I read between the lines is likely reverse engineered by volunteers) as well!"

wolfgang42 6y ago
> likely reverse engineered Probably some of this had to be done (specs never quite match implementation), but the ADB protocol and hardware interface was quite well documented by Apple in Inside Macintosh and Guide to Macintosh Hardware which I’m sure the Linux devs availed themselves of. There was also an Apple KB article (written mostly for hardware and driver developers) with the charming title of “Help! Space Aliens Ate My Mouse!” which detailed all of the things that could go wrong with ADB that Apple hadn’t thought of when they wrote the original documentation.