dpol - Slashdot User

Submission + - Linux-friendly major motherboard manufacturers? 2

Submitted by

dotancohen

on Friday December 28, 2012 @03:34AM

dotancohen writes: "I am tasked with building a few Linux machines for a small office. However, all the currently available motherboards seem to be Linux-hostile. For instance, in addition to the whole UEFI issue, my last install was a three-day affair due to the motherboard reporting a Linux-supported ethernet device (the common RTL8168) whilst it was actually using a GbE Ethernet device that does not work with the legacy drivers and didn't even work with a test Windows 7 install until the driver disk was installed. There are no current HCL for Debian or Ubuntu and I've written to Asus and Gigabyte but from both have received the expected reply: No official Linux support, install Windows for best experience.

Note that I did even turn to the two large local computer vendors asking if they could provide Linux-compatible machines ready to go, but neither of them would be of any help. What globally-available motherboards or motherboard manufacturers can one recommend today?"

Submission + - GNU C Library 2.17 Announced, Includes Support for 64-bit ARM (paritynews.com)

Submitted by hypnosec on Thursday December 27, 2012 @08:38AM

hypnosec writes: A new version of GNU C Library (glibc) has been released and with this new version comes support for the upcoming 64-bit ARM architecture a.k.a. AArch64. Version 2.17 of glibc not only includes support for ARM, it also comes with better support for cross-compilation and testing; optimized versions of memcpy, memset, and memcmp for System z10 and zEnterprise z196; optimized version of string functions on top of some quite a few other performance improvements states the mailing list release announcement. Glibc v 2.17 can be used with a minimum Linux kernel version 2.6.16.

Comment Opera Mini (Score 1) 254

by dpol on Thursday December 29, 2005 @03:39PM (#14360036) Attached to: Ask Opera CEO Jon von Tetzchner

I recently discovered Opera Mini, and now routinely browse the web not on my notebook, but on my cell phone, a Sony Ericsson K750i.

(For those of you who haven't yet tried Opera Mini, it's a Java-based web browser for cell phones, using Opera's Small Screen Rendering. The pages themselves are rendered on Opera's server, and are then transmitted to the cell phone in a highly efficient, binary format.)

Opera Mini is obviously revolutionary, in that it allows cell phone users to have a full web experience, without having to resort to specially designed sites. It's further proof that a "mobile web" is clearly redundant, and that cell phones (and other "small devices") can be first-class citizens on the Internet.

You claim that Opera Mini will remain free. Yet I would be surprised if you didn't intend to make money off Opera Mini somehow. To the extent that you are at liberty to disclose such details, are you negotiating with handset makers, to have this technology included in cell phones? Are you planning on supplying the web browser for most cell phones in the future, replacing the abysmal software that is currently bundled?

Slashdot Top Deals