Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Thunderbolt Still Has Problems For Linux

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Thunderbolt Still Has Problems For Linux

    Phoronix: Thunderbolt Still Has Problems For Linux

    While the popularity and future of the Apple/Intel Thunderbolt interface can be debated, the current state of Thunderbolt on Linux still leaves a fair amount to be desired. While on the state of Linux hardware support, the Google Chromebook Pixel does work with modern Linux distributions, but not all support has been perfected...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTM5MjY

  • #2
    Apple Compatibility

    Apple doesn't design their hardware/software with anyone else in mind. Apple makes their hardware so it works with their software and vice-versa. I don't think it's a hit against Apple that their version of Thunderbolt doesn't work with Linux. Thunderbolt though will still be popular until something faster is made, but now that Thunderbolt 2 is coming out with the new Mac Pro; I highly doubt there will be anything faster for quite some time.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by caryhartline View Post
      Apple doesn't design their hardware/software with anyone else in mind. Apple makes their hardware so it works with their software and vice-versa. I don't think it's a hit against Apple that their version of Thunderbolt doesn't work with Linux. Thunderbolt though will still be popular until something faster is made, but now that Thunderbolt 2 is coming out with the new Mac Pro; I highly doubt there will be anything faster for quite some time.
      Its not only Apple. NO manufacturer gives a fuck about linux (even the oh so linux friendly Intel). If your problem can be solved in kernel level you might get a solution. If you depend on the mfg to get it fixed you are fucked.

      Comment


      • #4
        It seems retarded to me. The only one going to release thunderbolt peripherals is apple. Basically they created a peripheral port for themselves. If apple were smaller I'd consider it financially suicidal.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by caryhartline View Post
          I don't think it's a hit against Apple that their version of Thunderbolt doesn't work with Linux.
          It's not that it doesn't work with Linux - it's that it doesn't do so because it fails to conform to the spec. The spec says that Thunderbolt should be implemented at the BIOS level, and no OS support is required. Apple have apparently ignored that, and implemented it in the OS, making their hardware unusable to any other OS that expects the hardware to conform to the spec.

          Now, obviously, Apple have no reason to care about people running other systems on their hardware - it's not a significant proportion of their sales. But it does further cement the status of Thunderbolt as an Apple-only technology...

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by duby229 View Post
            It seems retarded to me. The only one going to release thunderbolt peripherals is apple. Basically they created a peripheral port for themselves. If apple were smaller I'd consider it financially suicidal.
            Thunderbolt was actually created by Intel. Apple is just the only one using it.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
              Thunderbolt was actually created by Intel. Apple is just the only one using it.
              Intel + Apple made it, Apple is the only one using it.

              But moving on...

              Disclaimer / Notice: I work in a computer repair shop, dealing with "average users" everyday...I do feel this has qualified me to speak on their behalf...

              Firewire and Thunderbolt hit the same problem, they're new and different. The people who understood them enough to WANT them and were informed enough to know what they were, are also informed and understand enough to not buy Apple's marketing and therefore apple products. The average user has a hard enough time understanding USB so therefore even the "average" users who DID buy apple products and who HAVE thunderbolt ports available to them, they probably just chalk it up as "Another port on my computer" and dont care and/or stick to USB.

              The people who are gonna USE thunderbolt are the same people who used Firewire...

              Technologically informed computer users who buy into Apple's marketing / hate Windows... Or in other words: Audio/Video guys. Thunderbolt will remain THEIR niche the same way Firewire did.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Ericg View Post
                Firewire and Thunderbolt hit the same problem, they're new and different.
                And expensive.
                The people who are gonna USE thunderbolt are the same people who used Firewire...

                Technologically informed computer users who buy into Apple's marketing / hate Windows... Or in other words: Audio/Video guys. Thunderbolt will remain THEIR niche the same way Firewire did.
                Yep, that's exactly what I've seen too.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Thunderbolt is dead. It won't see any adoption.
                  It is not royalty-free, so it cost much money.
                  Also it is Intel-owned with no third-party manufacturers, so you have to buy the circuits from Intel, no competition.

                  Also, USB 3 which is royalty-free is "good enough".
                  Lets just wait for USB 4.

                  Also Chromebook Pixel sucks, it costs very much, its expensive and only has 4 GB RAM and 32 or 64 GB SSD. So it is only good as a web browser.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Unless you care about serious daisy chaining or have some hardcore SSD RAID set up, thunderbolt is no better than USB 3.0 (and a good video interface). Honestly, who cares whether it has good linux support or not (well, probably all those Mac users who run nix on their machines)? Let Apple and the few other endorsers use thunderbolt and the rest better cross-platform interfaces like USB and HDMI.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by molecule-eye View Post
                      Let Apple and the few other endorsers use thunderbolt and the rest better cross-platform interfaces like USB and HDMI.
                      I think you meant DisplayPort

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I just got an Intel motherboard with a Thunderbolt port. The fact it has one was mostly seen as a negative for me, since it potentially opens up DMA attacks and I don't really have any use for it. As of now, I don't even have a way of testing if it works, and have no idea what to do with it. I've heard of people gluing theirs shut, but I figure there has to be something it's useful for, right? Other than a display port of course, though even that is useless to me right now.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Ericg View Post
                          Firewire and Thunderbolt hit the same problem, they're new and different....
                          New? ...firewire dates back to the very late 80's or early 90's. Obviously, thunderbolt is somewhat new 2010 or 2011..? i can't remember off-hand the exact years...

                          Originally posted by Ericg View Post
                          The people who are gonna USE thunderbolt are the same people who used Firewire...

                          Technologically informed computer users who buy into Apple's marketing / hate Windows... Or in other words: Audio/Video guys. Thunderbolt will remain THEIR niche the same way Firewire did.
                          Firewire is still very much a highly used standard among proaudio device manufacturers, *regardless of platform/OS* and much more popular than thunderbolt. Sure, Firewire came from Apple, but it's common place and has been for a long time. It's really not a matter of buying into Apple's hype / hating windows ~ USB 2.0 is often less reliable, imho and more importantly ~ USB 2.0 is about half of the transfer rate of Firewire 800 based devices (and that is only in theory, USB 2.0 NEVER lived upto it's supposed 480mbps metric) and you can run firewire cables a lot further (which is an important practical detail)....

                          Even with USB 3.0 isn't it still only half the total band-width of thunderbolt? (unless this has changed?)...

                          < note: i use neither thunderbolt nor USB 3.0 devices, but do have USB 2.0, firewire 400 && firewire 800 based audio interfaces ... so i do have experience with those. firewire is *always* better than USB devices of the same type - in terms of speed / performance, stability and reliability . >

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by ninez View Post
                            New? ...firewire dates back to the very late 80's or early 90's. Obviously, thunderbolt is somewhat new 2010 or 2011..? i can't remember off-hand the exact years...
                            He was comparing what hindered the firewire adoption in the 90s to what is hindering thunderbolt adoption now, not saying that firewire is new today.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by tga.d View Post
                              I just got an Intel motherboard with a Thunderbolt port. The fact it has one was mostly seen as a negative for me, since it potentially opens up DMA attacks and I don't really have any use for it. As of now, I don't even have a way of testing if it works, and have no idea what to do with it. I've heard of people gluing theirs shut, but I figure there has to be something it's useful for, right? Other than a display port of course, though even that is useless to me right now.
                              You can use it as a low-latency point-to-point network if you like. Better than 1Gbs ethernet at latency-bound loads despite the nominal 800Mbps speed.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X