On Thu, 21 Feb 2008, Sergio Monteiro Basto wrote: > On Thu, 2008-02-21 at 00:13 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > > On Wed, 20 Feb 2008, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > > It doesn't punish them. They're the ones who are going to work with us > > > to ensure that Linux works on their hardware, and their needs are going > > > > And since when we have to work exactly like Windows (whatever version) does > > in THAT case? > > > > Also, why would one thing (proper replacement for OSI(Linux)) cause any sort > > of difference over the other (trying to be bug-to-bug compatible with > > Microsoft crap). > > > > I agree with Henrique. Since we have, in fact, more Windows cases than > Linux cases and for Linux, just announce that is recommended, > osi=linux. EH? I am *against* osi=Linux. I am for a proper *replacement* for OSI=Linux, *and* trying to be Windows-compatible where possible. > Also it is possible put Linuxs bios in a kind of white-list in kernel > code ... Linux-BIOS boxes *really* should not need ACPI for anything other than the very basic stuff, at all. Nor should them implement SMM handling, or any other such crap that always bite us back in the nether regions, with poisoined teeth. -- "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
