meh...
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| 750 May 10, 2012 2:31 PM EDT |
If he insist on using products from the most user-hostile (user not equal consumer) tech company out there, he brought it on himself. |
| caitlyn May 10, 2012 4:22 PM EDT |
Nonsense. Mac hardware generally works very well indeed with Linux. The issue is strictly in the EFI code and his gripe is legitimate. Please also not he worked around the issue and got his distro of choice working on his Mac Mini. To me your comment is nothing more than gratuitous Apple bashing. |
| lcafiero May 10, 2012 5:06 PM EDT |
You're right, caitlyn. I was expecting another hurricane like the one with OpenSUSE a few months ago, but this was a good solution. |
| gus3 May 10, 2012 5:35 PM EDT |
Besides, Sony is our current two-minute hate target (and their latest quarterly shows it). But Apple ranks up there. |
| BernardSwiss May 10, 2012 6:30 PM EDT |
@gus3 Well, arguably, Sony deserves it even more. But Apple is bigger, and has more (and more committed) fan-bois. I personally am quite happy to shovel some well-deserved cr@p in both directions. (I'm being only semi facetious) |
| 750 May 11, 2012 6:36 PM EDT |
@Caitlyn by basically dropping to bios compatibility mode. A mode that only came into being because Apple found they could sell more if they allowed Windows to be installed alongside OSX. A mode that may well drop into some black home now that Win8 is gaining EFI support (to the point of MS mandating it even on ARM systems) and it may well no longer be needed for those that want to dual boot Windows. Apple drops things left and right the moment it no longer fits their way of things. having to work around something just shows that whoever sold it to you did not have your best interests in mind. |
| caitlyn May 11, 2012 7:06 PM EDT |
What you say about Apple could be said of any hardware manufacturer. They all do what serves the bottom line. The less they have to support the lower the cost to them. |
| gus3 May 11, 2012 7:22 PM EDT |
Quoting:The less they have to support the lower the cost to them.Yet they keep selling new hardware, aiming at different market niches. Desktops, laptops, music players, phones.... If they really want to lower their costs, they could stop supporting it all. (A variation on my old theme, "the most secure data at rest, is in a computer with no power.") |
| caitlyn May 11, 2012 7:24 PM EDT |
My point, which seems to have been missed, is that Apple is no better and no worse than any other major vendor. The initial comment, to me, still reads as gratuitous Apple bashing. This from someone who owns no Apple equipment of any sort and is not planning on buying any. |
| tracyanne May 11, 2012 7:26 PM EDT |
I once owned Apple equipment, but never will again. Please, please can I bash Apple. |
| caitlyn May 11, 2012 7:28 PM EDT |
tracyanne, I believe in free speech. You can bash away and others can refute your bashings if they so choose. |
| 750 May 16, 2012 7:07 PM EDT |
Except that outside of Apple, the hardware brands do not have a large ecosystem to talk about. Instead they piggyback on the Microsoft ecosystem (with all the side effects that has, like the ACPI of a certain Foxconn made motherboard). While there has been some change in the Apple style with the change of leadership, i suspect that they would push a update that would nullify bootcamp if they considered it as being to the benefit of their ecosystem. So using Apple branded hardware but not a Apple branded OS is to compute at Apple's mercy. |
| caitlyn May 16, 2012 8:37 PM EDT |
Quoting:So using Apple branded hardware but not a Apple branded OS is to compute at Apple's mercy.I'm not at all convinced. |
| gus3 May 16, 2012 8:50 PM EDT |
@caitlyn, take a look at SMI in Intel's x86 arch. It is above all privilege, and it can be set up by the on-board boot code, before the boot loader ever gets a crack at things, and long before the OS kernel takes over. Because Apple controls their Macintosh brand (and peripherals) so tightly, I would not be surprised at all to find out that Macintosh EFI uses SMI to supersede the OS's intentions. |
| JaseP May 17, 2012 9:22 AM EDT |
I'm hoping that this whole thing goes the way of the last attempt to stick similar cr@p in our machines,... And that people voting with their dollars will pull the rug out from under this cr@p. Linus is right (once again) in that EFI is an abomination. The worse part is the UEFI secure boot stuff... .it will directly prevent Linux from becoming mainstream on computers. I think the Senate subcommittee investigating M$ for locking other browsers out of Win8 RT should be investigating M$ & Intel for UEFI Secure Boot... Innovation stops being innovation when it is used to further illegal market manipulation. |
| Fettoosh May 17, 2012 10:40 AM EDT |
Quoting:UEFI ...And that people voting with their dollars will pull the rug out from under this cr@p Unfortunately some people are compromising on what they considered little issues and they need to be reminded of Ben Franklin's words. "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." |
| Khamul May 17, 2012 12:19 PM EDT |
I disagree, unless by "some" you mean 99.999%. |
| Fettoosh May 17, 2012 12:27 PM EDT |
Quoting:unless by "some" you mean 99.999%. Not enough solid stats to say. |
| caitlyn May 18, 2012 2:14 AM EDT |
Quoting:I disagree, unless by "some" you mean 99.999%.We really don't know yet. Linux distros are already supporting EFI and somehow I expect some clever FOSS developers will find workarounds for UEFI. At least I hope so. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!