3 ms·

> locked up bootloader is the problem. Apple has documentation up on how to self-sign your own binaries for installing whatever you want on M1 bare metal. > p

> locked up bootloader is the problem. Apple has documentation up on how to self-sign your own binaries for installing whatever you want on M1 bare metal. > proprietary MacOS only drivers Drivers are specific to an OS, calling them proprietary is redundant. It would be a great service to the community if Apple were to release Linux drivers or at least specs so someone else could write them. But if you want unix running on Mac hardware, the best experience is almost always going to be running MacOS. (Until of course Apple stops shipping MacOS for the current hardware)

zamadatix 6y ago
> Drivers are specific to an OS, calling them proprietary is redundant. Not at all, proprietary means it's closed source it has nothing to do with which OS it's for e.g. Nvidia has proprietary drivers for more than just one OS. This leads into the rest of your comment in that Apple doesn't need to flat out make Linux drivers as a service to the community (though that would be great) rather they could simply share the info needed about their existing software or about the hardware so the community could focus on coding a driver instead of reverse engineering proprietary hardware and software.
- ogre_codes 6y ago
  > Not at all, proprietary means it's closed source You are correct. For some reason I had a whole other idea of what you meant in your previous comment.
the_af 6y ago
> Drivers are specific to an OS, calling them proprietary is redundant. Software being proprietary is independent of whether it's specific to an OS. I can write FOSS apps specifically for macOS. Drivers can also be FOSS. > But if you want unix running on Mac hardware, the best experience is almost always going to be running MacOS Maybe. If the standards get completely opened, no proprietary components or drivers, it remains to be seen which one would be best.
- ogre_codes 6y ago
  > Software being proprietary is independent of whether it's specific to an OS. I've never really associated "Proprietary" with Open versus Closed source. > Maybe. If the standards get completely opened, no proprietary components or drivers, it remains to be seen which one would be best. It's been a while since I've used desktop Linux regularly so it's hard for me to say. Apple more or less designed this processor for running iOS & MacOS though so its going to have an edge regardless of quality of Linux drivers.
  - the_af 6y ago
    > I've never really associated "Proprietary" with Open versus Closed source. But that's what it's about, more or less: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proprietary_software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proprietary_software. While exact definitions of open, closed and proprietary software vary, no mainstream definition is related to "specific to an OS". Software can be single/multiplatform and it can be FOSS/proprietary, and those two axes are independent. > Apple more or less designed this processor for running iOS & MacOS though so its going to have an edge regardless of quality of Linux drivers. If Apple retains some "secret magic sauce", sure. However, on a level field, with full access to the hardware for everyone who asks, who can say?
    - ogre_codes 6y ago
      > But that's what it's about, more or less It makes sense. Just not really a term I would use that way so never occurred to me in that context. > If Apple retains some "secret magic sauce". However, on a level field, with full access to the hardware for everyone who asks, who can say? That's not really what I was thinking. If you build the CPU and the OS together, you can make optimizations which aren't available to more modular systems.

zamadatix 6y ago

> Drivers are specific to an OS, calling them proprietary is redundant. Not at all, proprietary means it's closed source it has nothing to do with which OS it's for e.g. Nvidia has proprietary drivers for more than just one OS. This leads into the rest of your comment in that Apple doesn't need to flat out make Linux drivers as a service to the community (though that would be great) rather they could simply share the info needed about their existing software or about the hardware so the community could focus on coding a driver instead of reverse engineering proprietary hardware and software.

ogre_codes 6y ago
> Not at all, proprietary means it's closed source You are correct. For some reason I had a whole other idea of what you meant in your previous comment.

the_af 6y ago

> Drivers are specific to an OS, calling them proprietary is redundant. Software being proprietary is independent of whether it's specific to an OS. I can write FOSS apps specifically for macOS. Drivers can also be FOSS. > But if you want unix running on Mac hardware, the best experience is almost always going to be running MacOS Maybe. If the standards get completely opened, no proprietary components or drivers, it remains to be seen which one would be best.

ogre_codes 6y ago
> Software being proprietary is independent of whether it's specific to an OS. I've never really associated "Proprietary" with Open versus Closed source. > Maybe. If the standards get completely opened, no proprietary components or drivers, it remains to be seen which one would be best. It's been a while since I've used desktop Linux regularly so it's hard for me to say. Apple more or less designed this processor for running iOS & MacOS though so its going to have an edge regardless of quality of Linux drivers.
- the_af 6y ago
  > I've never really associated "Proprietary" with Open versus Closed source. But that's what it's about, more or less: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proprietary_software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proprietary_software. While exact definitions of open, closed and proprietary software vary, no mainstream definition is related to "specific to an OS". Software can be single/multiplatform and it can be FOSS/proprietary, and those two axes are independent. > Apple more or less designed this processor for running iOS & MacOS though so its going to have an edge regardless of quality of Linux drivers. If Apple retains some "secret magic sauce", sure. However, on a level field, with full access to the hardware for everyone who asks, who can say?
  - ogre_codes 6y ago
    > But that's what it's about, more or less It makes sense. Just not really a term I would use that way so never occurred to me in that context. > If Apple retains some "secret magic sauce". However, on a level field, with full access to the hardware for everyone who asks, who can say? That's not really what I was thinking. If you build the CPU and the OS together, you can make optimizations which aren't available to more modular systems.