Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Qualcomm Linux 2.0

qualcomm.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 71 posts

Re: Qualcomm Linux 2.0

#41

Post by modeless »

senectus1 wrote: post #5
wmf wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's happening: https://www.phoronix.com/news/HP-EliteBook-X-G2q-Linux

holy hell.. the price tags...!

That's crazy, $4,586 for 32 GB RAM? Asus is selling an X2 Elite Extreme laptop with 48 GB RAM for $1,699.99 and it's in stock at Best Buy today. What is HP thinking?

Re: Qualcomm Linux 2.0

#42

Post by red_admiral »

modeless wrote: post #41
senectus1 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

holy hell.. the price tags...!

That's crazy, $4,586 for 32 GB RAM? Asus is selling an X2 Elite Extreme laptop with 48 GB RAM for $1,699.99 and it's in stock at Best Buy today. What is HP thinking?

At some point, RAM arbitrage will be profitable at small scale: buy a complete PC, rip the RAM out, dump the rest and resell online.

Re: Qualcomm Linux 2.0

#43

Post by trentor »

Qualcomm is not a good software steward. Every time I used something they had their hand in, it was abandoned rather sooner than later.

Eudora: bought, milked, killed. BREW: rotted. AllJoyn: dead. Toq/Mirasol: gone in two years. CodeAurora: shut down. And the $899 Snapdragon Dev Kit: shipped months late, then cancelled with support "paused indefinitely" while units were still in transit. Even Adreno drivers barely get updates after launch.

The silicon is great. But software at Qualcomm is a launch checkbox, not a commitment. At this point, "powered by Qualcomm" on a dev platform is a signal to stay away.

Re: Qualcomm Linux 2.0

#44

Post by aacid »

r_lee wrote: post #39
senectus1 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

holy hell.. the price tags...!

why on earth would anyone buy that shit if you can buy a macbook pro that literally looks and feels like art vs. a plastic windows laptop? it used to be that Apple was the pricier option but I guess not anymore

someone who doesn't want apple experience? I really don't need "art" computer if I'm not able to do what I want on it.

Re: Qualcomm Linux 2.0

#45

Post by mjg59 »

eschaton wrote: post #20
nullpoint420 wrote: post #17

Just upstream your drivers! Then you don't need Qualcomm Linux.... you just have Linux.

Why can’t upstream just take their drivers? Isn’t that the point of requiring those drivers to be GPL?

Linux tries to avoid special cases. That means that when someone shows up with a new driver that's either not something that fits into an existing category, or which sort of (but doesn't entirely) overlap with an existing driver, there's an extended set of design discussions about how to make this new driver fit into existing infrastructure in a way that's consistent with what's there and which also allows new things to exist.

That sounds great from a design perspective, but it can also lead to cases where people are attempting to design for utter unknowns - potential futures that may or may not exist, theoretical understandings of how hardware works, that kind of thing. It frequently prevents new drivers being merged without significant modification, and sometimes it results in a need to entirely rearchitect the relevant part of the kernel before the driver can even be considered (and also now you need to split that driver into three parts). Upstreaming is hard.

Re: Qualcomm Linux 2.0

#46

Post by mjg59 »

wmf wrote: post #25
eschaton wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why can’t upstream just take their drivers? Isn’t that the point of requiring those drivers to be GPL?

Upstream requires a level of quality most developers cannot meet.

"Quality" is maybe overloaded. Upstream requires the code to meet their sense of taste, and some of that is about quality, and some of that is about undocumented design concepts. It's not hard to meet the quality bar. Meeting the design requirements is extremely hard.

Re: Qualcomm Linux 2.0

#47

Post by alessandroberna »

r_lee wrote: post #39
senectus1 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

holy hell.. the price tags...!

why on earth would anyone buy that shit if you can buy a macbook pro that literally looks and feels like art vs. a plastic windows laptop? it used to be that Apple was the pricier option but I guess not anymore

Of course a 1000$+ windows laptop is going to look and feel like a low end 300$ one /s

Re: Qualcomm Linux 2.0

#49

Post by __patchbit__ »

r_lee wrote: post #39
senectus1 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

holy hell.. the price tags...!

why on earth would anyone buy that shit if you can buy a macbook pro that literally looks and feels like art vs. a plastic windows laptop? it used to be that Apple was the pricier option but I guess not anymore

macos desktop aesthetics have regressed, they managed to screw the rounded corners and the colors are too much

macbook m series processor laptops have the camera notch and frankenturd look and feel

thinkpads feel better and the hinge opens all the way

Post reply on HN