[jsiepkes]

This is also why I don't get why people are so enthusiastic about ARM. While there is nothing technically preventing manufacturers from using extensible standards and technologies like ACPI, UEFI, etc. with ARM, pretty much no one does. Meaning these devices are closed and pretty unusable with Linux.

[wkat4242]

Linux had the chance to fight against what GNU called "TiVoisation" but Linus said TiVo did nothing wrong.

So now we have a world full of devices running open software but which are locked down. And a Linux foundation run by corporates.

To me it is clear this was indeed a huge problem. Linux might not have become as big as it is now if it had taken GPL3 on board but it would have made it a lot harder for manufacturers to do what they're doing.

[brianwawok]

So they took gpl3, and manufactures all licensed windows. Does this help Linux or FOSS?

[wkat4242]

No the Linux kernel didn't move to gpl3 for this reason.

It should have, IMO. Because now we're stuck with all these locked devices. Even PCs are becoming more locked now. FOSS (at least on the OS level) can't really exist without open devices to run it on. Otherwise you're dependent on the gatekeepers of big tech and there's nothing 'free' about it anymore then.

[jsiepkes]

> No the Linux kernel didn't move to gpl3 for this reason.

Maybe, but even if they wanted to, it would be almost impossible. In Linux, the license of contributed code says "GPLv2", period. Not "GPLv2 or higher" like a lot of other projects do. If you are not the rights holder, you can't "re-license" a piece of GPLv2 code as GPLv3 as you could with for example a BSD license piece of code. Simply because the GPLV2 is too restrictive. So that would mean getting in touch with all current and past right holders / contributors (and maybe even people who inherited the rights of contributed code if the contributor passed away?) and get permission to re-license to GPLv3.

[pezezin]

I strongly agree with you. My little experience tinkering with ARM-based systems has been frustrating, I don't want to touch ARM ever again until it has some kind of standard boot process. Same for RISC-V.

[jeroenhd]

ARM support is still mediocre, but it's improving with the new Snapdragons. Every generation seems to make running normal Linux on those things a little bit less of a pain.

Funnily enough, the device with probably the best "normal" desktop protocol support is the old Windows RT tablet, which features an ARM SoC that runs UEFI and ACPI and everything. It's locked down to Microsoft's secure boot keys, unfortunately, but thanks to Microsoft abandoning the device, there are exploits you can use to bypass that.

[kcb]

The Thinkpad x13s is pretty good for a mostly normal arm Linux laptop. The SOC is still pretty usable and it's functionality on Linux is also pretty complete. The main thing lacking is the speakers are very low to protect them from blowing out without a proper driver.

[sumtechguy]

ARM does not have a 'ibm pc clone' moment. There is no one, that anyone wants to rally behind. The market is fragmented in an interesting way but a way that is hard for people to target. This fragmentation has existed since the start of microprocessor was started. There were hundreds of different x86, 6502, SH, MIPS, ARM style computers as well. Even the 'ibm pc' was even one of them, but everyone just kinda said 'that one'. All of those standards you said exist in some ARM boards. It is a really mixed bag. Out of all of the ARM systems RasberryPI came closest to a standard.

QCOM in this case probably could make a standard ARM PC. The problem will be QCOM corporate structure will probably strangle it. They will want to create a patent license stream. The interesting bits would be behind NDAs. It is their bread and butter.

The reality is no one wants to be IBM in the IBM/PC clone market. Basically the ones who did the expensive work to make the board but everyone just copies it.