Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

FreeBSD Foundation Buying Newer Laptops To Help Improve Hardware Support

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

  • kindu smith
    replied
    Since linus tovaldz has designed the pc version of unix --- GNU / linux for us, why should we use unix ----- FreeBSD implemented on the mainframe? ?

    Leave a comment:


  • starshipeleven
    replied
    Originally posted by aht0 View Post
    Well, that's kind of different from the impression you tried to leave. So, the particular pieces did reach into public at least in some amount.
    After 4 years of paper launches, and 2 years beyond schedule, when the project was already dead.

    Now, show me who has or offers hardware based on that Loongsoohn xxx4000 cpu
    This is not the same situation in any way, shape or form. I already told you it is not a paper launch and repeating your initial question only makes me want to write Slowlaris some more times to dissuade you.

    Slowlaris Slowlaris Slowlaris.

    Leave a comment:


  • aht0
    replied
    Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post
    Probably a Lemaker Cello, that's the only board with that that ever shipped at all if I recall correctly. https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pa...-LeMaker-Cello

    They "launched" the hardware after like 4 years of pure paper launches, and 2 years late on the schedule. And afaik only a handful of boards were ever built and shipped years late.

    Afaik Linux also supports this thing, but the project was already dead when the boards started shipping.
    Well, that's kind of different from the impression you tried to leave. So, the particular pieces did reach into public at least in some amount. Now, show me who has or offers hardware based on that Loongsoohn xxx4000 cpu

    Leave a comment:


  • starshipeleven
    replied
    Originally posted by aht0 View Post
    Dude, you don't often enough bother checking even your own past posts I was quoting and just bash out random out of context reply.
    You could have shown you are better than me but no you don't. Fine by me.

    Nah,
    You can disagree, but I'm still right.

    So, what do we have here? No support in Linux and mythical AMD ARM working on NetBSD? Somehow they got their hands on one. Or what?
    Probably a Lemaker Cello, that's the only board with that that ever shipped at all if I recall correctly. https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pa...-LeMaker-Cello

    They "launched" the hardware after like 4 years of pure paper launches, and 2 years late on the schedule. And afaik only a handful of boards were ever built and shipped years late.

    Afaik Linux also supports this thing, but the project was already dead when the boards started shipping.

    grow up?
    Slowlaris

    Leave a comment:


  • aht0
    replied
    Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post
    Is it too hard to check the posts of the guy I was quoting? Just saying.
    Dude, you don't often enough bother checking even your own past posts I was quoting and just bash out random out of context reply.
    Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post
    Only slides and no actual progress. Hardware support is progress and it implies money is already invested. AMD's ARM processors are an example, only slides, no actual support, no actual hardware.
    Nah, when some piece of equipment was limited with a prototype batch, it means hardware isn't around to be had for general public regardless of it's support in kernel. Because it simply does not exist beyond handful of examples. It can very well happen that after sending patches upstream came down decision to cancel production. So support of some 2019 hardware could equal with some obscure equipment 30y a go nobody no longer is using. But you would not come and use that latter thing for bragging..

    About AMD ARM processors, you cannot be even sure if AMD did not produce some actual prototypes, put support in their in-house fork, later locked it all up and threw away the keys - because they could see from prototype's performance that things won't have a future.
    EDIT: https://www.netbsd.org/releases/form...etBSD-9.0.html
    Note:
    SBSA/SBBR (server-class) hardware using ACPI. Successfully test on, for example: Amazon Graviton (including bare metal instances), AMD Opteron A1100, Ampere eMAG 8180, Cavium ThunderX, Marvell ARMADA 8040, QEMU w/ Tianocore EDK2
    Looks like you were blasting away from hip claiming "AMD's ARM processors are an example, only slides, no actual support, no actual hardware"
    So, what do we have here? No support in Linux and mythical AMD ARM working on NetBSD? Somehow they got their hands on one. Or what?
    Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post
    Slowlaris
    grow up?
    Last edited by aht0; 12-03-2019, 07:18 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • starshipeleven
    replied
    Originally posted by aht0 View Post
    from where that Loongsoohn's example even started? Who brought it up first in previous posts?
    Is it too hard to check the posts of the guy I was quoting? Just saying.

    If general unavailability is no indication, then so what is indication of a "paper launch".
    Only slides and no actual progress. Hardware support is progress and it implies money is already invested. AMD's ARM processors are an example, only slides, no actual support, no actual hardware.

    If you don't like my "nitpicking" then first stop yours, I might reciprocate.
    Slowlaris

    Leave a comment:


  • aht0
    replied
    Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post
    I'm not the one that pulled that Longsoon to use as example to disprove my point, so yeah, the more you break his statement the more you are helping me telling him he is a moron and that I was actually factually right.

    That said I personally find questionable your nitpicking, there are no indications that this is a paper launch.
    Well, can you find that model up for sale anywhere? Can you see it even on Loongsoohn's Chinese site (Google Chrome can handle and auto-translate). For that matter, from where that Loongsoohn's example even started? Who brought it up first in previous posts? Not me. I simply went and checked if I could find that thing up for grabs from somewhere. If general unavailability is no indication, then so what is indication of a "paper launch". Not that I give two fucks about some obscure Chinese mips cpu.

    If you don't like my "nitpicking" then first stop yours, I might reciprocate.

    Leave a comment:


  • starshipeleven
    replied
    Originally posted by aht0 View Post
    When you have no way of getting this piece of hardware, then all the hardware support existence or not-existence remains effectively theoretical
    I'm not the one that pulled that Longsoon to use as example to disprove my point, so yeah, the more you break his statement the more you are helping me telling him he is a moron and that I was actually factually right.

    That said I personally find questionable your nitpicking, there are no indications that this is a paper launch.

    Leave a comment:


  • aht0
    replied
    Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post
    The hardware vendor itself is writing the driver, you tool. The vendor's hardware samples and test boards are not theoretical.
    Intel and AMD hardware usually merge hardware support before the product is even released, for example.
    And it makes sense to have Linux support out asap if your main OS is Linux. Longsoon systems are sold with Linux on them.

    Comparing this level of support with something that was added by someone in 2010 is not fair in the slightest. This is first class OS support by the fucking hardware vendor, for crying out loud.
    When you have no way of getting this piece of hardware, then all the hardware support existence or not-existence remains effectively theoretical. It's like some truebeliever bragging about the miracles his God's prophet supposedly did 1500-2000 years a go. It has no plausible value, except bragging rights.

    Leave a comment:


  • starshipeleven
    replied
    Originally posted by aht0 View Post
    You are just plainly trolling here.
    A dumb ass is comparing a patch where someone contributed support for Longsoon 3A4000 RIGHT NOW in Linux with generic support for (a possibly older) Longsoon arch in BSD, and claiming BSD has better support for this hardware.
    And I'm the one trolling if I point out that he is out of his mind.

    3A4000 is anything but theoretical only when you can somehow get your hands on it.
    The hardware vendor itself is writing the driver, you tool. The vendor's hardware samples and test boards are not theoretical.
    Intel and AMD hardware usually merge hardware support before the product is even released, for example.
    And it makes sense to have Linux support out asap if your main OS is Linux. Longsoon systems are sold with Linux on them.

    Comparing this level of support with something that was added by someone in 2010 is not fair in the slightest. This is first class OS support by the fucking hardware vendor, for crying out loud.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X