Is Foxconn deliberatley sabotaging Linux?-> 3
Submitted
by
Anonymous Coward
Anonymous Coward writes "A user on the Ubuntu forums posted a thread questioning the practices of the hardware manufacturer, Foxconn. From the Thread:
"I disassembled my BIOS to have a look around, and while I won't post the results here,I'll tell you what I did find.
They have several different tables, a group for Windws XP and Vista, a group for 2000, a group for NT, Me, 95, 98, etc. that just errors out, and one for LINUX. The one for Linux points to a badly written table that does not correspond to the board's ACPI implementation."
The worst part is Foxconn's insistence that the product is ACPI compliant because their tables passed to Windows work, and that Microsoft gave the the magic WHQL certification."
Link to Original Source
"I disassembled my BIOS to have a look around, and while I won't post the results here,I'll tell you what I did find.
They have several different tables, a group for Windws XP and Vista, a group for 2000, a group for NT, Me, 95, 98, etc. that just errors out, and one for LINUX. The one for Linux points to a badly written table that does not correspond to the board's ACPI implementation."
The worst part is Foxconn's insistence that the product is ACPI compliant because their tables passed to Windows work, and that Microsoft gave the the magic WHQL certification."
Link to Original Source
Much ado about nothing. (Score:1, Troll)
From reading it, appears one person has their panties in a knot over what is most likely left over buggy code after developers were told to certify the bios on windows only.
Might have something about the compliant claim but the company clearly states not certified under Linux and as such would be enough for me not to use it.
AFAIK they have other boards that work fine.
Sabotaged by Microsoft or Foxconn ? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)