4 ms·
> Software being proprietary is independent of whether it's specific to an OS. I've never really associated "Proprietary" with Open versus Closed source. > Ma
by ogre_codes 6y ago
> Software being proprietary is independent of whether it's specific to an OS.
I've never really associated "Proprietary" with Open versus Closed source.
> Maybe. If the standards get completely opened, no proprietary components or drivers, it remains to be seen which one would be best.
It's been a while since I've used desktop Linux regularly so it's hard for me to say. Apple more or less designed this processor for running iOS & MacOS though so its going to have an edge regardless of quality of Linux drivers.
- the_af 6y ago> I've never really associated "Proprietary" with Open versus Closed source. But that's what it's about, more or less: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proprietary_software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proprietary_software. While exact definitions of open, closed and proprietary software vary, no mainstream definition is related to "specific to an OS". Software can be single/multiplatform and it can be FOSS/proprietary, and those two axes are independent. > Apple more or less designed this processor for running iOS & MacOS though so its going to have an edge regardless of quality of Linux drivers. If Apple retains some "secret magic sauce", sure. However, on a level field, with full access to the hardware for everyone who asks, who can say?
- ogre_codes 6y ago> But that's what it's about, more or less It makes sense. Just not really a term I would use that way so never occurred to me in that context. > If Apple retains some "secret magic sauce". However, on a level field, with full access to the hardware for everyone who asks, who can say? That's not really what I was thinking. If you build the CPU and the OS together, you can make optimizations which aren't available to more modular systems.