If system vendors actually talked to us ahead of time, we'd be able to figure out a good plan (like "Don't claim compatibility with Windows 8.1 without implementing these features first"). As is, we have very little insight into what firmware vendors want and so have a choice of:
a) Claim compatibility with the latest version of Windows and risk things being broken because we don't implement every feature that Windows implements, or b) Advertise that we're Linux and risk things being broken because we don't define what "Linux" is for the reasons discussed in the post I referenced
(a) means trying to be exactly compatible with Windows, which means doing things like ensuring that _REV returns the same value. (b) is unworkable. The third option of figuring out what we need to implement before advertising something requires that system vendors be as willing to work in the open as we are.
Power management, mobile and firmware developer on Linux. Security developer at Aurora. Ex-biologist. mjg59 on Twitter. Content here should not be interpreted as the opinion of my employer. Also on Mastodon.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2015-03-16 07:57 am (UTC)a) Claim compatibility with the latest version of Windows and risk things being broken because we don't implement every feature that Windows implements, or
b) Advertise that we're Linux and risk things being broken because we don't define what "Linux" is for the reasons discussed in the post I referenced
(a) means trying to be exactly compatible with Windows, which means doing things like ensuring that _REV returns the same value. (b) is unworkable. The third option of figuring out what we need to implement before advertising something requires that system vendors be as willing to work in the open as we are.