| |
| ▲ | gf000 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Yeah, it's not that hard if the hardware is high quality and of small number of known types. Windows and Linux is judged by whether it works on any hardware, including the so-cheap-it-should-not-have-been-produced-ever machines, that will obviously just plain suck. No amount of software can save shitty hardware. | | |
| ▲ | presbyterian an hour ago | parent [-] | | I feel like Linux proselytizers are always talking about how Linux will revive or improve low-powered hardware, and that’s one of the reasons it’s so great. Then when it’s still a poor experience, the same Linux users say things like this, that no software can save bad hardware. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. Also, Linux expressly aims to run on a wide array of hardware, and macOS doesn’t. So Linux should be judged across a large range of hardware and macOS shouldn’t, in the same way a Jeep should be judged on its off-roading abilities and a Civic shouldn’t. | | |
| ▲ | gf000 33 minutes ago | parent [-] | | But then what is left to compare the two? A supersonic airplane is not better than a bicycle, nor the reverse is true. They are just.. different and only marginally related. Also, "revive" a device is more of a niche thing. What's more generally in line with linux's philosophy is it scaling down to embedded-like hardware, but also scaling up to supercomputers. Neither end is "a bad experience", and none of the other mainstream desktop OSs can even hold a candle next to it. | | |
| ▲ | presbyterian 20 minutes ago | parent [-] | | > But then what is left to compare the two? Countless other things about the way they work and how they handle what you want to do with them? We're not comparing radically different things, I was intentional about my comparison of Jeep vs Civic: they're the same basic tool, with different applications and contexts where they shine. This isn't an airplane and a bicycle. | | |
| ▲ | gf000 3 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Not really - a Jeep and a Civic is pretty similar in use case still. The Mac would be more like a tram that can only go on rails vs perhaps a bus. If we want to make some useless comparison. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | skydhash 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Hard to agree with those critics when the OS is doing the right thing, but the hardware won't play ball. The reason there's so much code in the Linux kernel is for various shenanigans that hardware vendors came up with. Yesterday I was looking at how HDMI audio is being implemented. From the specs, it looks quite nice with support for PCM and rates supported sent via EDID, but there's like 5 implementations for that one, 3 of them handling hacks by the GPU vendors. |
|
