> The problem is that you're already trusting Apple by buying their system which is inherently closed. What? Perhaps we have different definitions of a closed

> The problem is that you're already trusting Apple by buying their system which is inherently closed. What? Perhaps we have different definitions of a closed system. I mean, even if you buy a Librium you're still getting a "closed" system because there are binary blobs such as microcode updates that run on it. The only way you can have a 100% open system is if it's open source hardware and something like RISCV (IMHO). Anyway, with a datasheet for the motherboard components there's a reasonable chance that someone could get coreboot working on the board. Without datasheets, it's nearly impossible to replace the system firmware with a different implementation. > macOS is a completely closed OS with literally zero information about how these discrete chips may be used. I think Apple is still releasing the XNU source, so you should be able to glean some information about the device functionality from the kernel module source code (assuming that is also published). [1] > The datasheet provides you with the API to the hardware, but you have no idea how Apple would be using the microphone for example - whether it is T2 chip or Realtek. So what? I never said I wanted to know how macOS is using the microphone. > GP's argument about "closed system" is moot when you're talking about using an inherently closed system - meaning, OS + Hardware. No, it's moot for your specific definition of a closed system. My definition of a "closed system" differs from yours. > Also datasheets are what Realtek, for example, wants to publicize. How would you know if there is additional functionality built into the controller for backdoors, etc. that is deliberately left out of the datasheet? You don't. Invest in tin-foil hat manufacturers. > I understand your point completely - I agree that having datasheets publicly available certainly provides a level of transparency. From your response I don't get the impression that you understand my point at all. My point was that Apple is replacing standard components used in PC designs since decades with a black box and not publishing a data sheet. I didn't argue that macOS was open. I didn't claim Apple should provide the VHDL files of the T2. I just said, if they're going to replace components with public datasheets with a magical black box lacking any public datasheet, I don't like that. My comment was specifically about how lacking a datasheet for the T2 is going to make using the computer with Linux (and without forcing the T2 into "terribly insecure" mode) much more difficult. [1] https://github.com/opensource-apple/xnu https://github.com/opensource-apple/xnu