21 ms·
Those are quite dumb too, but Microsoft's deals with the OEM don't stop me from using Intel's hypervisor framework or iGPU on Linux.
by smoldesu 4y ago
Those are quite dumb too, but Microsoft's deals with the OEM don't stop me from using Intel's hypervisor framework or iGPU on Linux.
- pjmlp 4y agoDepends on how much the community has managed to reverse engineer the hardware, firmware, boot lock, and then there is Surface. The same way that Apple hardware has to be reversed engineered.
- smoldesu 4y agoWhy do you think I'm defending any of Microsoft's products here? When Microsoft releases a locked-down product, it's also as bad as when Apple does it. But even still, there's less reverse-engineering work that goes into getting a Surface device boostrapped than an Apple Silicon one. Writing a custom OS for x86 is lightyears easier than bootstrapping one for ARM.
- pjmlp 4y agoI don't think, rather pointing out Apple isn't alone. x86 only happened because of IBM being unable to kill the clones, and going forward many of them will eventually also have ARM workloads. All OEMs have Apple envy in shipping sealed experiences, just like all 16 bit platforms with exception of PCs. Hence why they rather ship locked down laptops, phones and tablets than classical desktops.
- smoldesu 4y agoWell, it's time we stopped the trend dead in it's tracks. IMO, it's fine to seal your experience however you want as long as the bootloader is open on the hardware. If the user isn't trapped in the hardware they own, then it's fair game.