Remix.run Logo
wslh an hour ago

Funny how Qualcomm is juggling three OSes to sell these chips while Apple just stuck a phone chip in the Neo and called it a day. Controlling the chip, the OS, and the actual computer is a huge advantage. Apple is more than one study case on competitive analysis.

cherryteastain an hour ago | parent | next [-]

This is entirely Qualcomm's doing. If they supported Arm SBSA/UEFI+ACPI like some other Arm chip companies (e.g. Ampere) you could boot a generic Linux (or indeed BSD) Arm distro on their chips no problem. Controlling the entire platform is not necessary, just follow the standards.

cromka 28 minutes ago | parent [-]

AFAIk this has nothing to do with Qualcomm but with vendors and Microsoft.

MrDrMcCoy an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

All they have to do is support Windows and get their stuff upstreamed in the Linux kernel, no need for specific distro support. I'll never understand why SoC manufactures insist on bespoke kernel/distro pairings.

PorciiVorbesc 37 minutes ago | parent [-]

>I'll never understand why SoC manufactures insist on bespoke kernel/distro pairings

So that if you want to use the next distro release you will be forced to buy their next-gen chip because that's the only supported one on that distro. D'uh.

bigyabai an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

What advantage? I'm always a bit shocked to see people say this without qualifying it at all.

On the contrary, Apple has to do a lot of greenfield work by refusing standards like UEFI, Vulkan and normal filesystems. They end up reinventing the wheel just to support the same featureset that Qualcomm, Nvidia, AMD and Intel all generally planned for.

wmf an hour ago | parent [-]

Is it more work to support a completely proprietary boot path or three different "standard" boot paths?

bigyabai 3 minutes ago | parent [-]

Hint: you would know the answer if you are familiar with the Windows, Linux and OSX boot process.