5 ms·

> What's that I hear Hacker News and Reddit cry? "It's a Dev Kit for Windows, you moron!" That may be the case, but Microsoft "Loves Linux", and clearly has wor

> What's that I hear Hacker News and Reddit cry? "It's a Dev Kit for Windows, you moron!" That may be the case, but Microsoft "Loves Linux", and clearly has worked hard to make WSL2 available out of the box on these devices. If people start buying MS Dev Kits to run Linux CI agents on them this defeats the whole purpose of having a dev kit: getting more people to write programs on and for Windows 11 on ARM.

jglathe 4y ago
why compile for a dead market. F'n hell no. I will tinker with this thing nonetheless, just for the fun of it and to learn something. FreeBSD(or was it OpenBSD?) already boots on this thing, which should make writing up a device tree not impossible.
bayindirh 4y ago
That's an ARM platform sold by Microsoft. It's supporting Windows alright, but it's a hardware platform at the end of the day. Dev kits are unlimited/unlocked machines by historical definition. They should allow experimentation. Locking Linux behind WSL2 is Microsoft's dream, and being oblivious about it won't help us in the future. People get crazy when people point out that Microsoft is deprecating it's 3rd party CA slowly, or making secure boot permanent step by step, or systemd slowly adds support for closed down hardware platforms which doesn't allow running unsigned/unsanctioned kernels. GPLv3 came to being because of TiVO pulled off a similar thing, and required its kernels to be signed by their own private key. Now why we allow another company do it and applaud them for doing so? If we want general computing to live, we need to have mechanisms to allow us to tinker with our own devices, and shouldn't need a company to sanction a specific kernel behind closed doors. It's 90s all over again, sigh. > If people start buying MS Dev Kits to run Linux CI agents on them this defeats the whole purpose of having a dev kit We're running Linux on computers bundled with Windows out of the box. So, are we defeating the purpose of the devices we buy with our own money? Same for installing ROMs to android devices, and Jailbreaking iOS devices. The device is mine. I paid for it. I should be able to do whatever I want with it.
- trelane 4y ago
  > We're running Linux on computers bundled with Windows out of the box. No all of us are. Fortunately, it's not the 90s, let alone the early 00s. We have the option of buying Linux preinstalled. It would be nice if we didn't collectively squander the opportunity. The wider point, though, is spot on. Hardware should obey its owner, not the company or companies that made it. Fortunately, the hardware that best supports Linux also often best supports user modification, so the two interests go well together.
  - bayindirh 4y ago
    > We have the option of buying Linux preinstalled. It would be nice if we didn't collectively squander the opportunity. Of course you're right, but all hardware is certified for Windows at the design stage, and only a subset (EliteBook, ThinkPad, XPS, etc.) is designed and verified against Linux kernel. Kernel needs to workaround a great deal of cut corners or shenanigans (incomplete ACPI tables, anyone?) to be able to function on these systems.
    - trelane 4y ago
      I don't think it's true that all hardware is certified for Windows. Yes, most hardware is not designed nor verified for running against Linux. Most hardware doesn't run OSX either. The solution, as with Mac, is to only buy systems with Linux pre-installed and supported. > Kernel needs to workaround a great deal of cut corners or shenanigans (incomplete ACPI tables, anyone?) to be able to function on these systems. Yes, exactly. Just like with Macs, one should buy systems where the firmware (including ACPI) is designed to run Linux. Hackintoshes are interesting, but few seriously consider that the main way of running OSX.
      - bayindirh 4y ago
        I meant all "PC" hardware, sorry for being vague. Also, macOS has an official hardware partner. All in all, we're on the same page. The rest is being pedantic about word semantics. :) > The solution, as with Mac, is to only buy systems with Linux pre-installed and supported. Yes!
pjmlp 4y ago
Of course, apparently only UNIX folks are developers.

jglathe 4y ago

why compile for a dead market. F'n hell no. I will tinker with this thing nonetheless, just for the fun of it and to learn something. FreeBSD(or was it OpenBSD?) already boots on this thing, which should make writing up a device tree not impossible.

bayindirh 4y ago

That's an ARM platform sold by Microsoft. It's supporting Windows alright, but it's a hardware platform at the end of the day. Dev kits are unlimited/unlocked machines by historical definition. They should allow experimentation. Locking Linux behind WSL2 is Microsoft's dream, and being oblivious about it won't help us in the future. People get crazy when people point out that Microsoft is deprecating it's 3rd party CA slowly, or making secure boot permanent step by step, or systemd slowly adds support for closed down hardware platforms which doesn't allow running unsigned/unsanctioned kernels. GPLv3 came to being because of TiVO pulled off a similar thing, and required its kernels to be signed by their own private key. Now why we allow another company do it and applaud them for doing so? If we want general computing to live, we need to have mechanisms to allow us to tinker with our own devices, and shouldn't need a company to sanction a specific kernel behind closed doors. It's 90s all over again, sigh. > If people start buying MS Dev Kits to run Linux CI agents on them this defeats the whole purpose of having a dev kit We're running Linux on computers bundled with Windows out of the box. So, are we defeating the purpose of the devices we buy with our own money? Same for installing ROMs to android devices, and Jailbreaking iOS devices. The device is mine. I paid for it. I should be able to do whatever I want with it.

trelane 4y ago
> We're running Linux on computers bundled with Windows out of the box. No all of us are. Fortunately, it's not the 90s, let alone the early 00s. We have the option of buying Linux preinstalled. It would be nice if we didn't collectively squander the opportunity. The wider point, though, is spot on. Hardware should obey its owner, not the company or companies that made it. Fortunately, the hardware that best supports Linux also often best supports user modification, so the two interests go well together.
- bayindirh 4y ago
  > We have the option of buying Linux preinstalled. It would be nice if we didn't collectively squander the opportunity. Of course you're right, but all hardware is certified for Windows at the design stage, and only a subset (EliteBook, ThinkPad, XPS, etc.) is designed and verified against Linux kernel. Kernel needs to workaround a great deal of cut corners or shenanigans (incomplete ACPI tables, anyone?) to be able to function on these systems.
  - trelane 4y ago
    I don't think it's true that all hardware is certified for Windows. Yes, most hardware is not designed nor verified for running against Linux. Most hardware doesn't run OSX either. The solution, as with Mac, is to only buy systems with Linux pre-installed and supported. > Kernel needs to workaround a great deal of cut corners or shenanigans (incomplete ACPI tables, anyone?) to be able to function on these systems. Yes, exactly. Just like with Macs, one should buy systems where the firmware (including ACPI) is designed to run Linux. Hackintoshes are interesting, but few seriously consider that the main way of running OSX.
    - bayindirh 4y ago
      I meant all "PC" hardware, sorry for being vague. Also, macOS has an official hardware partner. All in all, we're on the same page. The rest is being pedantic about word semantics. :) > The solution, as with Mac, is to only buy systems with Linux pre-installed and supported. Yes!

pjmlp 4y ago

Of course, apparently only UNIX folks are developers.