5 ms·
More like the notion of seeing different treatment between OSes. No one likes being punished for a choice that shouldn't be any of the selling party's business.
by pyrale 5mo ago
More like the notion of seeing different treatment between OSes. No one likes being punished for a choice that shouldn't be any of the selling party's business. That's especially true in the Linux community, which was the target of Microsoft's anticompetitive policies for decades.
That's just like when macOS users got mad when they learned they were targeted by marketing schemes to sell them more expensive stuff [1].
[1]: https://www.npr.org/2012/06/26/155792590/orbitz-targets-mac-users-for-pricier-hotels https://www.npr.org/2012/06/26/155792590/orbitz-targets-mac-...
- izacus 5mo agoMaintaining software on Linux just takes more time and effort - due to less stability and number of distros.
- pqtyw 5mo agoAMD is making more than enough money from hardware sales to fund the software that actually makes is usable. Even Apple doesn't charge you for the software needed to actually be able to use their devices (well since around Snow Leopard or so, at least). But I suppose the idea of not being as greedy as possible really "pisses off" AMD's executives (and presumably some of the people shilling for them here). And presumably you didn't read the article since AMD will continue to support this on Linux anyway.
- pyrale 5mo agoAMD does maintain Linux anyway, for their paid tiers. It's not like they're saving money by dumping the free tier for Linux.