3 ms·
The Linux kernel, GNU, et al have done decades of security updates, on hardware they don't control at all. > didn't realize Google's Tensor was the main SoC fo
by mindslight 4y ago
The Linux kernel, GNU, et al have done decades of security updates, on hardware they don't control at all.
> didn't realize Google's Tensor was the main SoC for current-gen Pixels; for some reason I thought the Tensor chip was a co-processor paired with a Snapdragon
Hah. I thought the exact same until someone set me straight in an HN comment. Which is actually what led to me buying the Pixel 7 (I'm dead set against the probably-still-insecure Qualcomm baseband+application processor combo; my S7 is an Exynos).
IMO, the Qualcomm software support problem could be fixed with sufficient right to repair legislation.
- hammyhavoc 4y agoThis isn't the same thing whatsoever. This frequently involves reverse engineering, see Asahi Linux for an example. That also doesn't mean that things work well or in their entirety, e.g., dock connectors on ThinkPads might not work. Google is a corp that is bound by the laws of the USA. If they were to reverse engineer a SoC by Qualcomm, they may infringe on their intellectual property rights amidst other issues. Not to mention, it's much easier to make their own chip, which they have done. Third-parties sometimes write alternatives like e/OS and LineageOS, but the devices they're written for are seldom functionally complete, just like Linux isn't in terms of hardware support a lot of the time.