3 ms·

> Why isn't there a company that would produce nearly macbook-quality laptops (albeit without the M-series ARM processor), but reliably linux-friendly? Because

> Why isn't there a company that would produce nearly macbook-quality laptops (albeit without the M-series ARM processor), but reliably linux-friendly? Because hackintoshes are much, much, much less common than someone slapping Linux on some random bit of kit. And nobody complains about OSX breaking or not running perfectly on non-Apple hardware. As evidenced by the term "hackintosh" itself. It's very hard for a Linux hardware company to gain any ability to innovate when so much of the market goes elsewhere. IMHO, it's nigh on miraculous that System76 is as great as it is. I would dearly love for them to be able to do more, but the reality is that most folks complain that it's not exactly what they want, and/or not exactly at the price point they want, and give their money to someone else. (Then they complain that Linux doesn't support their new Windows hardware adequately!) The smartest thing Apple ever did was force you to but Apple kit to run Apple software. Had they not, they'd have suffered the same fate. And we'd be discussing how much OSX sucks because it doesn't support the consumer Dell models adequately. (If OSX even continued to exist.)

cogman10 3y ago
> The smartest thing Apple ever did was force you to but Apple kit to run Apple software. Smart? Nah that was just the common practice at the rise of the Mac. IBM was somewhat insane for making such an open platform for anyone to play in. Yet, had they not done that we would not be having this discussion. DEC, Amiga, Osborne, the Java machine, etc. all were basically just locked up ecosystems based on proprietary software not built for tinkering.
- harkinian 3y ago
  And early 90s to mid 2000s was an era of especially standardized hardware. Every box was x86+RAM+mobo+HDD slapped together. With single CPU cores not getting much faster, hardware is becoming more specific again, making tight integration more advantageous.
  - trelane 3y ago
    It still wasn't that great back then. Even APM was wonky. Even back then, there was a tonne of firmware, and bugs got worked around in (Windows-only) drivers and INF files. The amount of firmware has since exploded, and it's gotten much more complex to boot (pun intended.) I think that's more the problem than specialized hardware.

cogman10 3y ago

> The smartest thing Apple ever did was force you to but Apple kit to run Apple software. Smart? Nah that was just the common practice at the rise of the Mac. IBM was somewhat insane for making such an open platform for anyone to play in. Yet, had they not done that we would not be having this discussion. DEC, Amiga, Osborne, the Java machine, etc. all were basically just locked up ecosystems based on proprietary software not built for tinkering.

harkinian 3y ago
And early 90s to mid 2000s was an era of especially standardized hardware. Every box was x86+RAM+mobo+HDD slapped together. With single CPU cores not getting much faster, hardware is becoming more specific again, making tight integration more advantageous.
- trelane 3y ago
  It still wasn't that great back then. Even APM was wonky. Even back then, there was a tonne of firmware, and bugs got worked around in (Windows-only) drivers and INF files. The amount of firmware has since exploded, and it's gotten much more complex to boot (pun intended.) I think that's more the problem than specialized hardware.