Qualcomm Linux 2.0 • Hacker News Board

Re: Qualcomm Linux 2.0

#51

Post by abc42 » Thu, Jul 02, 2026, 11:01 AM UTC

wmf wrote: post #3

LorenDB wrote: post #2

And here I was hoping they'd decided to support Linux on the Snapdragon X2 chips.

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

I used to believe, but now it seems to me that AMD and Intel will match Snapdragon's efficiency on x86 before that stuff is stable.

Re: Qualcomm Linux 2.0

#52

Post by abc42 » Thu, Jul 02, 2026, 11:03 AM UTC

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

The ability to run Linux properly would be worth about a $1000, if it was reality. But it isn't, so...

Re: Qualcomm Linux 2.0

#53

Post by aa-jv » Thu, Jul 02, 2026, 11:14 AM UTC

Qualcomm are forever blacklisted in my environment, because of their fuckery with backdoors for the spook agencies which fund their research.

I will definitely not be touching their Linux variant for that reason. I simply don't trust the company, one bit. They are the American Huawei.

Re: Qualcomm Linux 2.0

#54

Post by palata » Thu, Jul 02, 2026, 11:36 AM UTC

guilamu wrote: post #30

pjmlp wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When will folks learn companies only support Linux or any other FOSS to the extent their own business goals? None of them are on the game for the well being of the community or whatever. Profits and lower R&D costs, that is all.

Wouldn't you say that Valve is an exception to that rule?

What makes Valve great at the moment is that their business interest often aligns with ours (e.g. on the Linux support front). Which is great, don't get me wrong. But that's still beneficial for the company.

Re: Qualcomm Linux 2.0

#55

Post by dismalaf » Thu, Jul 02, 2026, 11:54 AM UTC

guilamu wrote: post #30

pjmlp wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When will folks learn companies only support Linux or any other FOSS to the extent their own business goals? None of them are on the game for the well being of the community or whatever. Profits and lower R&D costs, that is all.

Wouldn't you say that Valve is an exception to that rule?

It's in Valve's interest to have their own OS and not rely on a rival's platform. Especially a rival that has proven many times they WILL abuse their power.

Re: Qualcomm Linux 2.0

#56

Post by bfrog » Thu, Jul 02, 2026, 12:38 PM UTC

Ah yes, the qualcomm way. Rather than upstreaming things so it just works make a Qualcomm Linux, perhaps with NDA and laywer speak to sign off on to get access to anything at all, all to use their mediocre hardware.

Qualcomm you suck, upstream your drivers, make it open. Stop faffing about with closed proprietary junk. Somehow Intel, Tenstorrent, and AMD understand this but you don't. You aren't NVIDIA! Even if you were NVIDIA know that people absolutely despise that model.

Re: Qualcomm Linux 2.0

#57

Post by bfrog » Thu, Jul 02, 2026, 12:42 PM UTC

LorenDB wrote: post #2

And here I was hoping they'd decided to support Linux on the Snapdragon X2 chips.

Nah they'd rather try to continue to force snapdragon on windows where no one actually cares about this and the experience is trash.

AArch64 is dead for Windows and client Linux, and the knife is in Qualcomm's hands.

Re: Qualcomm Linux 2.0

#58

Post by panny » Thu, Jul 02, 2026, 12:44 PM UTC

bfrog wrote: post #56

Ah yes, the qualcomm way. Rather than upstreaming things so it just works make a Qualcomm Linux, perhaps with NDA and laywer speak to sign off on to get access to anything at all, all to use their mediocre hardware. Qualcomm you suck, upstream your drivers, make it open. Stop faffing about with closed proprietary junk. Somehow Intel, Tenstorrent, and AMD understand this but you don't. You aren't NVIDIA! Even if you w…

I was just about to complain about being locked into one kernel version, being at the mercy of a single vendor, but you said it so much better than I would have :) Thanks.

Re: Qualcomm Linux 2.0

#59

Post by readme » Thu, Jul 02, 2026, 1:08 PM UTC

Yocto sounds like it makes me feel when I use it

Re: Qualcomm Linux 2.0

#60

Post by officeplant » Thu, Jul 02, 2026, 1:24 PM UTC

LorenDB wrote: post #2

And here I was hoping they'd decided to support Linux on the Snapdragon X2 chips.

Never trust Qualcomm in the linux space. It only leads to frustration. Somehow I've had to learn this lesson more than once because I'm not the smartest ARM addict.