You do understand that those "clever emulation tricks" amounts to having horribly complicated decoding logic to decompose complex instructions into microinstructions for dispatch, right? That logic isn't made of magic pixie dust... it takes up actual space on the die. That's why an ARM core doesn't take up anywhere near as much silicon as an x86 core. That's also why an ARM core has a better cycles/watt ratio than any comparable x86 processor. This isn't exaggerated... this is the reality of microprocessor design. x86 microprocessors are compelled to carry around lots of instructions that few people use because of technical debt. A platform lacking that technical debt can be smaller, faster, cheaper, and use less power.. That's why ARM succeeds in the mobile space.
And what's your excuse for Android then? Were Android OEMs simply copying what Apple did? They (Motorola, et al) could very well have chosen to go with Intel, but they didn't. What was the thinking? For that matter, why didn't they go with AMD? Apple had solid reasons for considering Intel, but in the end if you show people two phones that are of comparable functionality and one of them has less battery life because they went with Intel, I think we both know which phone they're going to buy, ceteris paribus.
Insofar as there may be patents involved in implementing so much as USB2, no, you can't. For USB1? You probably could. People have done similar with DisplayPort and HDMI.
Or then there was the time he rewrote the FDL to let Wikipedia use CC-BY-SA because the previous version would be broadly incompatible with that. Oh, or then there was the time he went after Tivo for doing something that even he himself agreed didn't violate GPLv2 and effectively split the free software community because Linus and everyone else who'd bought into GPLv2 thought he was being an asshole and refused to relicense their stuff under GPLv3. Guy really has a history of doing dumb shit.
I think so, yeah. Christ, there's several people like that, honestly. However, didn't they just remove BcacheFS from the kernel? I thought I read that the other day.
Yes, now take your meds.
If it's proprietary then by definition they don't owe you any of their derivative work, bugfixes or otherwise. So if you're fine with that then just release it under the BSD or MIT license and be done with it. Both of those are pretty much "don't claim this is yours" and not a lot else. If you're not fine with that you might want to stop and ask yourself why before considering Apache, GPL, or other such licenses.
lgpl probably
apache is a copyleft license, android is released under it
this is actually a plain demonstration of the difference between "open source" and free software: linus wants you to share your modified code and doesn't mind if you pull a tivo, while stallman wants you to never interfere with the user's right to do what they want to with their computer. that's why he wrote the gpl3: to fix a hole he left open in the gpl2
It's not that simple, back in 2015 Asus partnered with Intel to use an Intel Atom x86 chip in their Zenfone 2, which had comparable battery life to other flagships at the time https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/asus-zenfone-2,4267-9.html For reference, the Zenfone 2 had a 3000 mAh battery, the same as the LG G4. The reason why ARM took over in mobile computing is because early ARM chips were already designed to be low wattage, and it's easy to buy an ARM license to make chips suitable for your phone or gameboy. On the other hand, x86 is exclusive to Intel and AMD, and it took a while for either of them to decide to make a mobile chip, and by the time the Atom existed, it was already too late for Intel to gain any ground in the phone market. The Atom was very successful in the Netbook market, however, until Steve Jobs killed it permanently with the iPad.
Google was already developing Android (as basically a Blackberry clone) when Apple approached them as a partner for the iPhone. If they had wanted to use Intel chips, they would have almost certainly used their ARM mobile chips, although it's not impossible that they could have already gotten their hands on Stealey chips. However, ARM had a huge advantage for Android, since it was a more or less freely available standard, instead of being vendor locked to one manufacturer, and so there is no chance that Google and HTC would have ever chosen an Atom for the Dream. Even Intel's ARM chips had a history of proprietary extensions for vendor locking, which is why they were unpopular, and Intel sold their rights.
And, as I've already said a few times today, technically also VIA, who really only use it for ATMs and helping the CPC.
Should have used NetBSD /thread
I wouldn't be surprised if they had a tiny embedded ARM core in the Wi-Fi adapter. Remember the PS4 has two small ARM cores instead of a Southbridge on their x86 boards (according to the fail0verflow group that worked on getting PS4 support into the mainline kernel), and many other weird horrors.
Ah I knew about VIA (who acquired their license when they got Cyrix) but forgot they had the x86_64 stuff too. I remember the benchmarks for the Zhaoxin chips being terrible years ago. It would be nice if they could make something competitive .. or even competitive on wattage/power for lower end embedded chips. There needs to be a 3rd player in the x86 space.
New Zealand is a terribly authoritarian state with too much socialism and zero freedom of speech or gun rights, but they did ban software patents. Software patents are idiotic and really need to go away.
I really like the Atom chips. I still have one running on the Linux machine I use as a router. It's and old industrial network device I found on eBay and it's passively cooled with the top of the metal case being one big head sink. It can handle 1Gb traffic fine. I never had an Edison board, but I heard Intel really fucked up in competing in the Raspberry Pi space with a lot of those kits being terribly unreliable. It would have been great to see more x86 in mobile. AMD had similar chips like the Athlon II Neo, but they weren't nearly as good.
hard drives don't store data with photons
I'm here to
Stallman literally rewrote the rules when Tivo did nothing wrong. You don't get to pretend that didn't happen and retroactively claim they did something wrong. For some strange reason that rubbed people the wrong way. And no, you also don't get to pretend that everyone piled behind him and supported GPLv3. That didn't happen. Check the stats on github and elsewhere.
Patents are one of the few things that works when it comes to making corporations pay what they fucking owe. I'm not willing to give up on that just because patent trolls exist... especially not since the America Invents Act added the ex parte review system which has been quite successful in shitcanning bad patents (software patents included). As far as I'm concerned if you've got a software patent then as long as you offer a carve-out to open source/free software such that merely writing software and distributing it is not infringement, but deployment in SaaS or OEM'ing it into products is. That's more or less what MPEG-LA has been doing for the better part of a decade now and it works. This is an easy stance to take, I suppose, in that there really isn't a lot that would qualify as patent-worthy in the field of computer science anymore... so most patents are 98% guaranteed to be bullshit. Not willing to toss away that 2% if it means corpos get stuck with a hefty bill.
Yes.
do you have your four freedoms on a tivo device? can you choose not to run tivo's software on the device? can you make modified versions of your tivo software and then run it on your device?
of course not everybody supported gpl3, but most of the people who didn't are not actually free software people
i'm sure a software forge where 99% of the projects are inactive is a great place to check numbers for license usage
I don't think saying the entire FOSS community agreed with Stallman is right. But saying almost everyone disagreed too. There were definitely people that wanted things to move to gplv3. Linus pushing back definitely had an effect on the opinion of people around the license change. I do know, after the gplv3 was revised, even his opinions on it softened. Because it made exceptions for the things he particularly had a problem with. Like legal reasons for not allowing open source software (I personally don't really buy into security by obscurity, at least not if it's a sophisticated enough attacker. so I feel like the legal enforcement of that is bullshit, but that's another topic). I would say people were split on the GPLv3.
it all depends on whether you're a free software supporter or an open source enjoyer
So no true Scotsman theory?
