yeah, auto correct.

Only if those device makers are willing to use it. And that has always been the tightrope linux has walked.

Its very history as a x86 platform means it has needed to develop drivers where hardware providers did not care. So that code needed to run on closed hardware.

It was bloody rare in the early days that any manufacturer cared to help. And still today its a case of rare hardware that needs no non free firmware.

Free hardware is something I’ll support. But it is stallman et als fight not the linux kernel developers. They started out having to deal with patented hardware before any one cared.

proprietary

Well related to the owner is the very definition of proprietary. So as far as upstream vs not available for upstream is concerned. That is what the term is used for in linux.

So yep by its very definition while a manufacture is using a licence that other distributions cannot embed with their code. Marking it proprietary is how the linux kernal tree was designed to handle it.

EDIT: The confusion sorta comes from the whole history of IBM and the PC.

Huge amounts of PC hardware (and honestly all modern electronics) are protected by hardware patients. Its inbuilt into the very history of IBMs bios being reverse engineered in the 1980s.

So as Linux for all its huge hardware support base today. It was originally designed as a x86(IBM PC) compatible version of Unix.

As such when Stallman created GPL 3 in part as a way of trying to end hardware patients. Linux was forced to remain on GPL 2 simply because it is unable to exist under GPL 3 freedom orientated restrictions.

The proprietary title is not seen as an insult. But simply an indication that it is not in the control of the developers labelling it.

GPL3 has extra restrictions banning patients etc. So yeah a lot of GPL 2 code written by companies that open software but not hardware. Would have legal questions about running with GPL 3

GPL 3 was created to be more restrictive to non-open hardware.

Darktable

Yeah im not an apple fan. (My brother would have a heart attack if I didnt say that. He loves them).

But the fact they controll both hardware and software means they can run on lower specs. They dont use it as well as they could. But android having to allow others to develop hardware. Provides a bit more ability for manufactures to implement less efficient drivers. This is why some higher spec low value stuff seems so slow compared to equal speced cheaper Samsung stuff etc.

Well nowadays yes. But when the term smartphone was invented. Really not.

The 1st iPhone was way lower spec then many high end phones of the time. Mainly Nokia but others as well.

Early androids and others def had no specific specs that differed them from other high-end phones such as Symbian Win CE (as crap as the OS was but then so was the smartphone mareted version recreated later on)

Seriously, marketing was the only thing that differed them from phones like the N95 and communicator etc etc.

And as I mentioned, the locked store front. That really seem to be the main difference but really I still find non-advantageous myself.

been a long while so my memory is likely flawed.

But I’m sure I remember someone getting doom running on a 95 in the 2000s some time.

Had one for a good few years. Moved from US back home to UK with it so lasted a good while.

Loved the thing. Hated when I had to give it up due to lack of support for newer software.

I still find it bloody hard to see how modern smartphone are technically different. When you consider early some android etc had keyboards etc. Basically, it’s just marketing and a more locked in app/program store.

Thats easy.

Some folks are insane.

And thank fuck for them. Doing dumb stuff like this has led to so much of the useful stuff we see and use now.

“Can I make this dumb idea work” is the very source of inspiration behind science. Never underestimate its value.

–

My relative sanity can be so disapointing to me ;)

High use Blender users tend to avoid AMD for the reasons you point out.

This leads to less updates due to amd users not being to interested in the community.

It is an issuw without any practicle solution. Because as I need a long overdue update. Again nvidia seems the only real choice.

Everyone is sorta forced to do that unless we can convince amd users to just try out blender and submit results.

So hi any AMD users who dont care about blender.

Give it a try and submit performance data please.

Yeah looks very much like nvidia is exclusive at the top even at the price I’m looking at.

The RTX4060 looks about right price vs performance. I’ll spend some time looking up how well they play with linux atm. And keep an eye out for a used RTX4070 as well.

If no one minds my hyjacking part of this thread.

Id also like some similar advice.

I use blender. Not heavily but have been playing on it for 20plus years.

My GPU is pretty old. 1050ti at the time nvidia was pretty much it for blender.

Im looking for a sub £300 card in the next 3 to 6 months.

Is AMD well supported by blender now. And what cards would folks recomend these days.

PS not a gamer. 0ad is about as close as i get.

A valid point. But the result is that over a pretty short period of time. These C developers will find delays in how quickly their code gets accepted into stable branches etc. So will be forced to make clear documentation into how the refactoring effects other elements calling the code. Or move on altogether.

Sorta advantageous to all and a necessary way to proceed when others are using your code.

I will add as a narrowboater.

I found towpaths also have this issue with definition of surface.

I am legally blind. (Some vision but bad)

I have a few times tried to add more ditail to areas of towpath that will help the others like me know what to expect before mooring.

Seems anything that improves this will help in your issues as well.

Wow someone have enouth fuck about the fuck I gove. To write an app to monitor it.

Pity I dont give enouth fucks to install it.

Because some users are putting that data on Linux. So they want Linux to be killed.

They can’t change grub. But they sure as hell can convince micro$org to search for and nuke it.

Of course no idea if this happened. Just answering why they would might want to.

Cool. At the time, it was one of the best. Although, I also liked sun-os.

I also worked with VMS a lot after uni. Hated using it. But had to respect the ideals behind it.

But watching the growth of Linux has been fantastic. In 2024. It does seem to have out evolved all the others. ( Evolved, defined as developed the ability to survive by becoming so freaking useful. )

I am starting to think it is time for a micro kernel version, though.

Was a few years later for me.

Not DMU by any chance?

Late 1990s my uni had unix workstations HPUX.

So all projects etc were expected to be done on those. Linux at the time was the easy way to do it from home.

By the time I left uni in 98. I was so used to it windows was a pain in the butt.

For most of the time since I have been almost 100% linux. With just a dual boot to sort some hardware/firmware crap.

Ham radio to this day. Many products can only do updates with windows.