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

The weird Hewlett Packard FreeDOS option

blog.tmm.cx

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 156 posts

Re: The weird Hewlett Packard FreeDOS option

#121

Post by gambiting »

ajsnigrutin wrote: post #46
yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #33

What gets me is... what's the point ? If you don't want to fight MS about selling PCs with no OS, ship some Linux distro. DOS was a nice option when you needed to support bare-metal stuff like flashing the BIOS without a modern OS getting in the way, but I would be shocked if that worked here - basically, I can see reasons to ship DOS, but they're all mutually incompatible with a virtual machine. And if you're going…

Shipping your PC with "some linux distro" means you have to support that linux distro. Selling it with freedos, you only have to support freedos, and people who buy that option will install something else anyway.

>>means you have to support that linux distro.

But why or how? I just don't see that at all. Dell won't "support" FreeDOS either. It could be just a basic Ubuntu install that's broken as hell, and I don't see why or how Dell would need to support that.

Re: The weird Hewlett Packard FreeDOS option

#122

Post by necovek »

detaro wrote: post #49
ajsnigrutin wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some countries also prohibit selling laptops without any OSs because they're unusable in that way, so this is a way to sell a technically "fully usable laptop" for people who'll install linux anyway.

which leaves the question of why going through the hassle of creating this mess instead of just Linux.

Recipients of Linux machines might expect them to perform all their functions well, whereas there is no such expectation with FreeDOS.

So while they offer Ubuntu on a limited set of machines, perhaps this emulated approach allows them to effortlessly ship neither-Windows-nor-Ubuntu option to everyone to guide their development/marketing effort (learn if people are happy with Ubuntu/Windows options).

Re: The weird Hewlett Packard FreeDOS option

#123

Post by voxadam »

raverbashing wrote: post #115
ndiddy wrote: post #5

I’m guessing they’re doing this because modern x86 processors can’t boot into BIOS mode anymore (edit: untrue, see reply by dmitrygr). This makes me wonder why they’re even offering FreeDOS as an option when they offer Linux for customers who don’t wish to purchase a Windows license. Maybe they have some sort of contractual obligation with a large customer?

And I guess FreeDOS doesn't support booting by UEFI as well (I mean, can it even?)

"FreeDOS assumes a BIOS, and does not work with UEFI."[0]

[0]http://wiki.freedos.org/wiki/index.php/UEFI

Re: The weird Hewlett Packard FreeDOS option

#124

Post by Avery3R »

timClicks wrote: post #60
bayindirh wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, don't forget the Minix running inside a small embedded processor inside your processor or platform controller.

I occasionally wonder what an operating system running below ring 0 would be used for. I haven't thought of anything compelling, apart from being a backdoor.

ring -1 is canonically the hypervisor, so you could probably count hyper-v or xen or esxi as operating systems

Re: The weird Hewlett Packard FreeDOS option

#125

Post by hnlmorg »

dotancohen wrote: post #117
hnlmorg wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Industrial users are not price sensitive That's not a universal truth. I've worked with plenty who are. > Having the keyboard, monitor, and computer in a single housing with a built-in UPS all in a compact device with a single power cord is a big selling point. That's not a universal truth either. Sometimes the device will be a headless controller. In which case a laptop wouldn't always the right form factor. There…

Thank you, I've clarified the comment by adding the word "many". It is a generalization, that holds in many but not all cases.

Indeed, but isn’t that literally what I said in my original comment?

Re: The weird Hewlett Packard FreeDOS option

#126

Post by bryanlarsen »

prmoustache wrote: post #113
bryanlarsen wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Free to you, but HP is likely paying Ubuntu. They wouldn't be paying much, but they're probably paying something. The Ubuntu license says that if they make any modification whatsoever, no matter how trivial, they can no longer call it Ubuntu. Just adding a driver is enough to trigger the clause, AFAICT.

I doubt that. Most likely it is an agreement that is seen as a win on both party. HP has no incentive to pay ubuntu for anything, and ubuntu can't get any new market if it starts asking companies to pay for it. And they could use whatever distro they want that do not have those clauses instead of ubuntu.

The agreements would have been signed when Ubuntu had >50% Linux market share. Increasing share is not particularly helpful in that scenario compared to increasing revenue per seat.

Also, these agreements are Ubuntu's primary revenue source, AFAICT. And they have hundreds of millions in revenue per annum. Primarily from the cloud vendors.

All distros have these clauses. The software is free, but the name is a protected registered trade mark. Not all distros enforce it, but the HP lawyers will ensure HP is covered.

Finally corporate buyers will want a trusted distribution, not the flavor du jour.

Re: The weird Hewlett Packard FreeDOS option

#127

Post by ge0rg »

Given that HP is also using obscure/outdated Linux images in their own Intelligent Provisioning / Smart Storage Administrator tools that are installed on the built-in flash of (at least) gen8 servers https://op-co.de/blog/posts/microserver_gen8_fix_boot_order/>, I'm not at all surprised to see similar approaches in other situations.

Re: The weird Hewlett Packard FreeDOS option

#128

Post by nousermane »

bayindirh wrote: post #100
walrus01 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some batteries have an entire stm32 series microcontroller in them, I've seen battery controllers that are actually the same "CPU" as on a discrete single motor quadcopter ESC.

Apple's laptop batteries in 2008 MacBook models have an independent microcontroller in them, which enables apple to manage it at a much more advanced level. That generation of laptops can detect a problem with the battery much earlier (e.g. It can warn the user a year before the battery starts to swell. Been there, seen that). This knowledge is the basis of apple's battery technology that we see on their mobiles (iOS…

IBM PC keyboard from 1981 (and all later external PC & Mac keyboards) have an independent microcontroller.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_MCS-48#Uses

Re: The weird Hewlett Packard FreeDOS option

#129

Post by dotancohen »

hnlmorg wrote: post #125
dotancohen wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you, I've clarified the comment by adding the word "many". It is a generalization, that holds in many but not all cases.

Indeed, but isn’t that literally what I said in my original comment?

I was emphasizing the utility of having the entire system packaged as a single unit (a laptop) for these clients.

Re: The weird Hewlett Packard FreeDOS option

#130

Post by dfox »

dmitrygr wrote: post #13
ndiddy wrote: post #5

I’m guessing they’re doing this because modern x86 processors can’t boot into BIOS mode anymore (edit: untrue, see reply by dmitrygr). This makes me wonder why they’re even offering FreeDOS as an option when they offer Linux for customers who don’t wish to purchase a Windows license. Maybe they have some sort of contractual obligation with a large customer?

> modern x86 processors can’t boot into BIOS mode anymore This is false. They still can and happily will. Issue is more about vendor not shipping a CSM image. A modern x86 processor will happily run real DOS just fine.

That depends on what one means by "booting into BIOS mode". CSM is a shim than makes UEFI firmware look like BIOS to the OS (or, well, bootloader) and to x86 code in various option ROMs, so you are always booting into UEFI.

Really booting without UEFI being involved in the process would require completely different firmware image.

Post reply on HN