11 ms·

>owner would make it incompatible two seconds after they would smell competition We're talking about Apple, right? The company that made an entire software pla

>owner would make it incompatible two seconds after they would smell competition We're talking about Apple, right? The company that made an entire software platform called Bootcamp, specifically to enable a competitor's OS to run on their hardware? A company who custom-developed drivers specifically to be compatible with a competitor's OS on their own hardware? You're talking about that Apple? The one who said they would be open to allowing Windows to run on M1 if Microsoft developed a compatible version of Windows? I just want to make sure we're talking about the same company, because you seem to think we're talking about a company who runs in the face of competition, where the Apple I know confronts it head-on and goes out of their way to be compatible with the competitors.

eyelidlessness 6y ago
And they did all of that in response to community solutions that weren’t as solid as their first party support. They went out of their way to support and extend the viability of their users clear desire for dual booting, at that time of a much more formidable competitor than MS is today.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- ineedasername 6y ago
  It wasn't altruism, they did it because it would help sell more hardware and bring more people into the Apple ecosystem. If they see a similar use for Linux support, they'll do the same. If they think it will hurt them in some way, they won't. But I think it's fair to at least consider the "undermine" possibility considering that on iPhones they've consistently blocked attempts to jailbreak or open that platform in the way an alternate OS does on their Macs. We've already seen incremental moves to make MacOS app distribution more centrally controlled. So I honestly don't know where Apple believes their long-term interested to be on the topic of facilitating, or at least not actively blocking Linux.
  - eyelidlessness 6y ago
    > It wasn't altruism, they did it because it would help sell more hardware and bring more people into the Apple ecosystem. > > If they see a similar use for Linux support, they'll do the same. If they think it will hurt them in some way, they won't. I agree and said... pretty much the same thing. I just don’t think there’s a snowball’s chance in hell Apple will see Linux as a threat. > But I think it's fair to at least consider the "undermine" possibility considering that on iPhones they've consistently blocked attempts to jailbreak or open that platform in the way an alternate OS does on their Macs. We've already seen incremental moves to make MacOS app distribution more centrally controlled. So I honestly don't know where Apple believes their long-term interested to be on the topic of facilitating, or at least not actively blocking Linux. Nope. Not likely, unless the mechanism for getting Linux on the M-series is software exploits of the macOS platform. They don’t do anything to undermine booting entirely other OSes on their hardware, even iDevices. But they do patch up their own stack.
    - ineedasername 6y ago
      You can't "nope" your way around Apple putting up a few walls around the MacOS garden just because they've left a door in one of them. If they go no further, then it's fine. But "not likely" is a bit too soon to say until they've gone a while without further limitations. That is, unless you consider something like the Mac equivalent of Project Sandcastle running on outdated hardware to be an acceptable situation, which appears to require a jailbreak of their stack anyway. There's simply nothing stopping Apple from going that route, and some years of incremental changes to MacOS that have inched it closer. Again, I'll believe they won't do that when they stop taking those incremental steps. Until then, "nope" really just means "not yet".
      - eyelidlessness 6y ago
        I'm pretty amused by all the "open" and "free" advocates the last few days telling me what I "can't" or "should have to" do.
nightski 6y ago
Bootcamp is dead on M1. In addition they have taken steps towards further locking down which apps can run on OSX. So he's probably talking about that Apple.
- internet2000 6y ago
  Bootcamp isn't available as Microsoft doesn't have a version of Windows compatible with the new platform. The parent comment even says that. And Gatekeeper has been around for 8+ years, always with ways to run whatever you want, but I'm sure the "locking down" is coming any day now. It's just business: Apple won't intentionally remove features that makes their hardware more attractive. It's where they make most of their money.
  - nightski 6y ago
    I didn't mean to imply it was Apple's fault Windows did not run on M1 (in fact it has been shown that Windows ARM64 does run natively on M1 albeit through a patched QEMU due to lack of driver support), but by designing a custom SoC they have abandoned the approach which would afford them the most compatibility (staying with x86). This may have been the right direction for them, but it's not the same approach as before and definitely abandons compatibility in favor of better performance. Second while Gatekeeper has been around for 8+ years, the default of contacting an Apple server on every program launch was new (or so I thought) with Big Sur. It's a step towards that direction. People could not launch apps when this server was down.
    - spacedcowboy 6y ago
      Nah, gatekeeper has been doing the remote check thing for years (just, 2 of them, I think). It only became noticeable because there was an oversight in the "fail-fast" algorithm. If Apple was available, it was assumed it would be fast, and it wasn't when there was an iCloud outage.
      - mjcohen 6y ago
        I followed the instructions on how to use Little Snitch to skip Apple's app start stuff.
2OEH8eoCRo0 6y ago
The company that forced me to buy a mac to develop for them?
- msie 6y ago
  How about Windows? Did someone force you to buy a computer to develop for it?
  - netsharc 6y ago
    In theory one could do Windows dev on hard mode (on Linux/Mac): get one of the Windows virtual machines that Microsoft provides to test for old IE compatibility (https://developer.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-edge/tools/vms/ https://developer.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-edge/tools/v...), install the freely available compilers (or even the open source Cygwin one), and code away!
    - heavyset_go 6y ago
      Microsoft distributes free Windows VMs with developer tools installed for the explicit purpose of developing on Windows, there's no need to use their IE images.
  - aruggirello 6y ago
    You can pretty much develop software for Windows on other platforms too. Cross compilation is supported in several languages, and when you can't - you can usually compile stuff under Wine, or even ReactOS. So while obviously you need a computer, you don't strictly need Windows.
    - aspyct 6y ago
      Yes you do need Windows. Wine is great, but there's no way I'll publicly release a windows application that hasn't been tested on an actual windows install.
      - 6y ago
thayne 6y ago
> The one who said they would be open to allowing Windows to run on M1 if Microsoft developed a compatible version of Windows? How generous of them. And will they provide microsoft with the specs needed to do so?
cookiengineer 6y ago
Yes, we are talking about that Apple which integrated soft fuses that can be triggered remotely, and will brick your device physically. We are talking about that Apple which sued a recycling vendor in Canada because they recycled devices instead of trashing them. We are talking about that Apple which bribed judges in the US to deny its endusers the right to repair. We are talking about that Apple which removed even the audio port of a device to prevent its competition to breakout of the locked hardware with their "upgrades" like better cameras, or even payment systems that wont be supported by Apple. We are talking about that Apple which even changed their goddamn shell from the BSD fork because they didnt want to "open source" (Apple thinks this is zip file dumping) their own bash, which was the only reason bash was outdated for decades. Yes, we are talking about that Apple. Once anything is a competition, it will be extinguished by Apple. They only care about profits, and nothing else.
- eyelidlessness 6y ago
  > bribed judges ... Say more...?
- sbuk 6y ago
  >Yes, we are talking about that Apple which integrated soft fuses that can be triggered remotely, and will brick your device physically. Care to expand on that? > We are talking about that Apple which sued a recycling vendor in Canada because they recycled devices instead of trashing them. That's incorrect. They sued the company because they were supposed to take the devices apart and recycle/recover the parts. Not resell them as manufacturer refurbished. > We are talking about that Apple which bribed judges in the US to deny its endusers the right to repair. Again, please expand on that. > We are talking about that Apple which removed even the audio port of a device to prevent its competition to breakout of the locked hardware with their "upgrades" like better cameras, or even payment systems that wont be supported by Apple. Arguably, for the 2 things you have mentioned, the Lightening port would be much better suited. They took out the headphone jack because wires are a pain in the ass and the state of the art for wireless headsets is good enough for the majority. > We are talking about that Apple which even changed their goddamn shell from the BSD fork because they didnt want to "open source" (Apple thinks this is zip file dumping) their own bash, which was the only reason bash was outdated for decades. So brief history of the defaults shells in macOS. First 3 releases it was tcsh (BSD - inherited from NeXTStep), then for a while, it was the GPLv2 version of bash (last version to be released under GPLv2 was 3.2), more recently they moved to zsh (MIT). The critical part to get here is licensing. The GPLv3, like it or not, is a controversial license. Apple have an issue with GPLv3, so they avoid software that uses it. Frankly, when bash transitioned to GPLv3 is when Apple should've made the change, but that is a different discussion.
josteink 6y ago
> We're talking about Apple, right? The company that made an entire software platform called Bootcamp, specifically to enable a competitor's OS to run on their hardware? Let's rephrase that: The company that made a generic X86 computer and intentionally created a non-standard way to boot operating systems on their run-of-the-mill X86 hardware, so that other X86-compatible operating-systems running on the same hardware would have issues and make OSX look better by comparison. Yeah, that company. I don't expect them to do jack shit for compatibility.

eyelidlessness 6y ago

And they did all of that in response to community solutions that weren’t as solid as their first party support. They went out of their way to support and extend the viability of their users clear desire for dual booting, at that time of a much more formidable competitor than MS is today.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
ineedasername 6y ago
It wasn't altruism, they did it because it would help sell more hardware and bring more people into the Apple ecosystem. If they see a similar use for Linux support, they'll do the same. If they think it will hurt them in some way, they won't. But I think it's fair to at least consider the "undermine" possibility considering that on iPhones they've consistently blocked attempts to jailbreak or open that platform in the way an alternate OS does on their Macs. We've already seen incremental moves to make MacOS app distribution more centrally controlled. So I honestly don't know where Apple believes their long-term interested to be on the topic of facilitating, or at least not actively blocking Linux.
- eyelidlessness 6y ago
  > It wasn't altruism, they did it because it would help sell more hardware and bring more people into the Apple ecosystem. > > If they see a similar use for Linux support, they'll do the same. If they think it will hurt them in some way, they won't. I agree and said... pretty much the same thing. I just don’t think there’s a snowball’s chance in hell Apple will see Linux as a threat. > But I think it's fair to at least consider the "undermine" possibility considering that on iPhones they've consistently blocked attempts to jailbreak or open that platform in the way an alternate OS does on their Macs. We've already seen incremental moves to make MacOS app distribution more centrally controlled. So I honestly don't know where Apple believes their long-term interested to be on the topic of facilitating, or at least not actively blocking Linux. Nope. Not likely, unless the mechanism for getting Linux on the M-series is software exploits of the macOS platform. They don’t do anything to undermine booting entirely other OSes on their hardware, even iDevices. But they do patch up their own stack.
  - ineedasername 6y ago
    You can't "nope" your way around Apple putting up a few walls around the MacOS garden just because they've left a door in one of them. If they go no further, then it's fine. But "not likely" is a bit too soon to say until they've gone a while without further limitations. That is, unless you consider something like the Mac equivalent of Project Sandcastle running on outdated hardware to be an acceptable situation, which appears to require a jailbreak of their stack anyway. There's simply nothing stopping Apple from going that route, and some years of incremental changes to MacOS that have inched it closer. Again, I'll believe they won't do that when they stop taking those incremental steps. Until then, "nope" really just means "not yet".
    - eyelidlessness 6y ago
      I'm pretty amused by all the "open" and "free" advocates the last few days telling me what I "can't" or "should have to" do.

nightski 6y ago

Bootcamp is dead on M1. In addition they have taken steps towards further locking down which apps can run on OSX. So he's probably talking about that Apple.

internet2000 6y ago
Bootcamp isn't available as Microsoft doesn't have a version of Windows compatible with the new platform. The parent comment even says that. And Gatekeeper has been around for 8+ years, always with ways to run whatever you want, but I'm sure the "locking down" is coming any day now. It's just business: Apple won't intentionally remove features that makes their hardware more attractive. It's where they make most of their money.
- nightski 6y ago
  I didn't mean to imply it was Apple's fault Windows did not run on M1 (in fact it has been shown that Windows ARM64 does run natively on M1 albeit through a patched QEMU due to lack of driver support), but by designing a custom SoC they have abandoned the approach which would afford them the most compatibility (staying with x86). This may have been the right direction for them, but it's not the same approach as before and definitely abandons compatibility in favor of better performance. Second while Gatekeeper has been around for 8+ years, the default of contacting an Apple server on every program launch was new (or so I thought) with Big Sur. It's a step towards that direction. People could not launch apps when this server was down.
  - spacedcowboy 6y ago
    Nah, gatekeeper has been doing the remote check thing for years (just, 2 of them, I think). It only became noticeable because there was an oversight in the "fail-fast" algorithm. If Apple was available, it was assumed it would be fast, and it wasn't when there was an iCloud outage.
    - mjcohen 6y ago
      I followed the instructions on how to use Little Snitch to skip Apple's app start stuff.

2OEH8eoCRo0 6y ago

The company that forced me to buy a mac to develop for them?

msie 6y ago
How about Windows? Did someone force you to buy a computer to develop for it?
- netsharc 6y ago
  In theory one could do Windows dev on hard mode (on Linux/Mac): get one of the Windows virtual machines that Microsoft provides to test for old IE compatibility (https://developer.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-edge/tools/vms/ https://developer.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-edge/tools/v...), install the freely available compilers (or even the open source Cygwin one), and code away!
  - heavyset_go 6y ago
    Microsoft distributes free Windows VMs with developer tools installed for the explicit purpose of developing on Windows, there's no need to use their IE images.
- aruggirello 6y ago
  You can pretty much develop software for Windows on other platforms too. Cross compilation is supported in several languages, and when you can't - you can usually compile stuff under Wine, or even ReactOS. So while obviously you need a computer, you don't strictly need Windows.
  - aspyct 6y ago
    Yes you do need Windows. Wine is great, but there's no way I'll publicly release a windows application that hasn't been tested on an actual windows install.
    - 6y ago

thayne 6y ago

> The one who said they would be open to allowing Windows to run on M1 if Microsoft developed a compatible version of Windows? How generous of them. And will they provide microsoft with the specs needed to do so?

cookiengineer 6y ago

Yes, we are talking about that Apple which integrated soft fuses that can be triggered remotely, and will brick your device physically. We are talking about that Apple which sued a recycling vendor in Canada because they recycled devices instead of trashing them. We are talking about that Apple which bribed judges in the US to deny its endusers the right to repair. We are talking about that Apple which removed even the audio port of a device to prevent its competition to breakout of the locked hardware with their "upgrades" like better cameras, or even payment systems that wont be supported by Apple. We are talking about that Apple which even changed their goddamn shell from the BSD fork because they didnt want to "open source" (Apple thinks this is zip file dumping) their own bash, which was the only reason bash was outdated for decades. Yes, we are talking about that Apple. Once anything is a competition, it will be extinguished by Apple. They only care about profits, and nothing else.

eyelidlessness 6y ago
> bribed judges ... Say more...?
sbuk 6y ago
>Yes, we are talking about that Apple which integrated soft fuses that can be triggered remotely, and will brick your device physically. Care to expand on that? > We are talking about that Apple which sued a recycling vendor in Canada because they recycled devices instead of trashing them. That's incorrect. They sued the company because they were supposed to take the devices apart and recycle/recover the parts. Not resell them as manufacturer refurbished. > We are talking about that Apple which bribed judges in the US to deny its endusers the right to repair. Again, please expand on that. > We are talking about that Apple which removed even the audio port of a device to prevent its competition to breakout of the locked hardware with their "upgrades" like better cameras, or even payment systems that wont be supported by Apple. Arguably, for the 2 things you have mentioned, the Lightening port would be much better suited. They took out the headphone jack because wires are a pain in the ass and the state of the art for wireless headsets is good enough for the majority. > We are talking about that Apple which even changed their goddamn shell from the BSD fork because they didnt want to "open source" (Apple thinks this is zip file dumping) their own bash, which was the only reason bash was outdated for decades. So brief history of the defaults shells in macOS. First 3 releases it was tcsh (BSD - inherited from NeXTStep), then for a while, it was the GPLv2 version of bash (last version to be released under GPLv2 was 3.2), more recently they moved to zsh (MIT). The critical part to get here is licensing. The GPLv3, like it or not, is a controversial license. Apple have an issue with GPLv3, so they avoid software that uses it. Frankly, when bash transitioned to GPLv3 is when Apple should've made the change, but that is a different discussion.

josteink 6y ago

> We're talking about Apple, right? The company that made an entire software platform called Bootcamp, specifically to enable a competitor's OS to run on their hardware? Let's rephrase that: The company that made a generic X86 computer and intentionally created a non-standard way to boot operating systems on their run-of-the-mill X86 hardware, so that other X86-compatible operating-systems running on the same hardware would have issues and make OSX look better by comparison. Yeah, that company. I don't expect them to do jack shit for compatibility.