As a was going through my feedreader last night I came across an article submitted to digg called “Linux Only Hardware.” The only description was “Article about why we need Linux only hardware.” So the first thing I thought was that this guy needs to be told that making hardware that will only work with Linux is completely in contradiction with the free software movement, but then I read the article. I just assumed that he was talking about making hardware that used some kind of device (maybe in the bios) to make it impossible to use the hardware with Windows (kind of like reverse trusted computing), but I was very wrong.
Here is a dissection of the article:
What is not talked about is how in fact Linux is basically a Operating System that runs on Microsoft hardware.
KeyBoard and mice are the only hardware that I know of that Microsoft makes. He doesn’t literally mean hardware made by Microsoft though.
If you have been in the business long enough you should know what I mean. The Intel x86 architecture has been tuned over the years to run Microsoft Windows. It’s a total monopoly. Oh yeah, you could say it’s an open architecture if you live with your head up your ass.
This shows a complete lack of understand of how computers work. If a processor is changed in a way that is going to make a significant different to programming it will likely change architecture as well. Compilers are changed to better fit processors but that is a different story all together. I have one question for this fellow; why would Intel repeatedly make chips beyond the capabilities of Microsoft operating systems (i.e. 32 bit and 64 bit processors). To finnish up I just want to point out that the x86 architecture first debuted it 1978(source) and DOS debuted in 1981(source).
As a matter of fact even Apple has conceded their proprietary hardware in favor of Intel’s Microsoft hardware. You can even find people who have Microsoft Windows running directly on this “new” Apple hardware.
I’m not sure what his point is here. I guess he is saying that interoperability is bad and that every company should have their own set of proprietary “standards.” Of course, the real reason Apple switched was because Intel could make better chips much faster than IBM. The G5 is an utter piece of crap.
Back to my main point: The biggest problem, maybe the only problem facing Linux is that all computer hardware is basically Microsoft hardware and Linux has to reverse engineer it to make Linux work on it. The Linux community has had the luck last year to get Dell to begin to sell computer with Ubuntu pre-loaded and this has been a good thing for Linux, however the hardware is just Microsoft hardware with Linux installed from the factory. Not a really risky commitment.
Yet more misunderstanding of the way things work. Linux does have a problem with hardware but it is not that it is being designed for Microsoft; it is that the companies that make the hardware don’t make linux drivers and won’t give out the specs needed by kernel developers to make them.
What the world needs is Linux hardware. This is hardware made specifically to run Linux. In my opinion this should not be Intel manufactured. Perhaps AMD should take the lead position in developing CPU chips that are tuned for Linux, or even better would be to get someone like SGI (previously known as Silicon Graphics) to turn their MIP presses again with tweaks for Linux.
No it doesn’t. The world needs Hardware with open standards so that drivers can be made for any operating system. There is more out there than Linux (by Linux he probably means Ubuntu).
Until we see specific Linux hardware on the market Linux will be forced to play on another teams home field.
I’m sure this guy is one of those Ubuntu fanboys that I talked about a while ago… The thing that really made me mad was that his blog has no comment section! I can’t tell him how stupid he is to his face if he won’t let me comment is blog!