6 ms·

Apple doesn't really have any interest in making it easier for people to use Macs for anything that doesn't benefit their closed ecosystem - they are still ok w

Apple doesn't really have any interest in making it easier for people to use Macs for anything that doesn't benefit their closed ecosystem - they are still ok with you using it for open source or enterprise work so long as they don't have to do anything special. That part of their stance has been very consistent. People have been consistently rewarding them for this direction by buying more of their stuff and relying on open source projects to fill in the gaps without really acknowledging the obvious problem that Apple has made it increasingly unattractive to use their hardware to do anything other than Apple stuff. To me it matters most that I be able to do things that I want easily on the platform I choose - in that sense PC hardware with Linux is the best choice I have, with Windows coming in 2nd due to how much Microsoft has done to make their OS attractive for wide variety of use cases that are not necessarily to Microsoft's direct benefit.

saagarjha 6y ago
Apple uses Homebrew internally; it is in their best interest to keep it working on Apple silicon.
- blinkingled 6y ago
  Didn't know that, thanks - have they contributed to homebrew in the past? If they have then then it's just sloppiness to release hardware without contributing a port and maybe later on we will see it happen?
  - my123 6y ago
    Homebrew works today (w/ build all packages instead of prebuilt bottles available), however they have a policy of not having downstream patches, so that source trees upstream have to have the Apple Silicon patches. For packages such as GCC, that of course will take a lot of time. For Java, there are other supported runtimes like Azul Zulu, but Homebrew just wants OpenJDK and not much else.
    - saagarjha 6y ago
      Perhaps Homebrew Cask might be receptive to alternative Java runtimes?
      - my123 6y ago
        You need them to be registered on Homebrew as the Java package, if just for dependency resolving...
        saagarjha 6y ago
        Perhaps they could (ab)use the versioning system, vending it as openjdk@azul or something? I'm not an expert on how Homebrew does dependency resolution.
  - RandallBrown 6y ago
    They hired Max Howell, the author of Homebrew. I don't think he works there anymore though.
- fierarul 6y ago
  Perhaps, but not such high interest that Homebrew would prove to work today.
  - terramex 6y ago
    It works very well today through Rosetta.
- pjmlp 6y ago
  They aren't required to upstream their fixes.
  - saagarjha 6y ago
    I doubt they make many.
    - pjmlp 6y ago
      Me too, just making the point that the licenses chosen by the majority of the packages don't force them to do.
throwaway989472 6y ago
Apple make extensive use of homebrew internally, so this is clearly bullshit.
nojito 6y ago
This isn't true. Apple donated Macs to Homebrew. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25188225 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25188225
- blinkingled 6y ago
  It's better than nothing but clearly it doesn't seem to be a priority for them and the rest of my point still stands - they don't do nearly enough outside of their priorities.
  - my123 6y ago
    It is a priority. However, the macOS on arm64 port has only been revealed to everyone in June. These things take time.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - zepto 6y ago
    You do realize homebrew has worked as well on Apple silicon since launch under Rosetta as it ever did on more Intel Macs? There is essentially no regression, and Apple is donating hardware to enable Homebrew to do the work to extract more performance from the new chips. What ‘more’ do you think they should do?
    - blinkingled 6y ago
      Contribute patches for all the blockers mentioned towards native homebrew in this post?
      - my123 6y ago
        Homebrew does have a policy of not having downstream patches, so that source trees upstream have to have the Apple Silicon fixes. That makes the process much more complex.
      - 6y ago
throw0101a 6y ago
> Apple doesn't really have any interest in making it easier for people to use Macs for anything that doesn't benefit their closed ecosystem - they are still ok with you using it for open source or enterprise work so long as they don't have to do anything special. That part of their stance has been very consistent. Besides being used internally as mentioned, making the Alpha Geeks (to use Tim O'Reilly's phrase) happy would be prudent for their continued success. If the Alpha Geeks aren't using your product, they will not recommended it to their friends when asked for computer advise, and it will not be installed in relatives' home where the Alpha Geeks tend to do tech support. The Alpha Geeks was how Apple probably got more popular that PCs in the first place, and they may now have a lot/enough inertial to keep moving forward, but Microsoft and PCs used to be the 800-pound (400 kg) gorilla, and they're less so now. There's a lot of Unix-y stuff being used in academy, research, and HPC: plenty of folks there would be just as willing to switch to a PC with Ubuntu/Debian/CentOS (which run the world's HPC clusters) if macOS gets in the way of their workflow if Homebrew or Macports don't work.
- ChuckNorris89 6y ago
  >The Alpha Geeks was how Apple probably got more popular that PCs in the first place At which point in time was that? From the statistics I could google in a few seconds, for the last 20 years, MacOS was always hovering around 10-15% of the worldwide desktop PC market share with Windows at around 75-85% and linux/BSD the rest of the scraps.
- fjdjsmsm 6y ago
  All of the Apple products that have achieved broader success have been derided by ‘Alpha Geeks.’ The original candy coloured iMacs, iPods, iPhones, iPads, were all attacked by geeks. If Microsoft is less successful in the home market now, it is because Windows is seen by many consumers as too techy, and too difficult.
- vmchale 6y ago
  > There's a lot of Unix-y stuff being used in academy, research, and HPC: plenty of folks there would be just as willing to switch to a PC with Ubuntu/Debian/CentOS (which run the world's HPC clusters) if macOS gets in the way of their workflow if Homebrew or Macports don't work. Absolutely. I'd say Linux is the default for science and ML!
user-the-name 6y ago
You know Boot Camp exists, right? That is a huge amount of work, done specifically by Apple themselves, in order to support running completely different OSes on their hardware.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
coliveira 6y ago
I consider that developing software for the Apple platform is a free job to benefit Apple. It rarely pays, and you need to be always on the look for ways Apple is breaking the platform on their frequent releases. I personally wouldn't do that unless I had a very clear motivation.

saagarjha 6y ago

Apple uses Homebrew internally; it is in their best interest to keep it working on Apple silicon.

blinkingled 6y ago
Didn't know that, thanks - have they contributed to homebrew in the past? If they have then then it's just sloppiness to release hardware without contributing a port and maybe later on we will see it happen?
- my123 6y ago
  Homebrew works today (w/ build all packages instead of prebuilt bottles available), however they have a policy of not having downstream patches, so that source trees upstream have to have the Apple Silicon patches. For packages such as GCC, that of course will take a lot of time. For Java, there are other supported runtimes like Azul Zulu, but Homebrew just wants OpenJDK and not much else.
  - saagarjha 6y ago
    Perhaps Homebrew Cask might be receptive to alternative Java runtimes?
    - my123 6y ago
      You need them to be registered on Homebrew as the Java package, if just for dependency resolving...
      - saagarjha 6y ago
        Perhaps they could (ab)use the versioning system, vending it as openjdk@azul or something? I'm not an expert on how Homebrew does dependency resolution.
- RandallBrown 6y ago
  They hired Max Howell, the author of Homebrew. I don't think he works there anymore though.
fierarul 6y ago
Perhaps, but not such high interest that Homebrew would prove to work today.
- terramex 6y ago
  It works very well today through Rosetta.
pjmlp 6y ago
They aren't required to upstream their fixes.
- saagarjha 6y ago
  I doubt they make many.
  - pjmlp 6y ago
    Me too, just making the point that the licenses chosen by the majority of the packages don't force them to do.

throwaway989472 6y ago

Apple make extensive use of homebrew internally, so this is clearly bullshit.

nojito 6y ago

This isn't true. Apple donated Macs to Homebrew. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25188225 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25188225

blinkingled 6y ago
It's better than nothing but clearly it doesn't seem to be a priority for them and the rest of my point still stands - they don't do nearly enough outside of their priorities.
- my123 6y ago
  It is a priority. However, the macOS on arm64 port has only been revealed to everyone in June. These things take time.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- zepto 6y ago
  You do realize homebrew has worked as well on Apple silicon since launch under Rosetta as it ever did on more Intel Macs? There is essentially no regression, and Apple is donating hardware to enable Homebrew to do the work to extract more performance from the new chips. What ‘more’ do you think they should do?
  - blinkingled 6y ago
    Contribute patches for all the blockers mentioned towards native homebrew in this post?
    - my123 6y ago
      Homebrew does have a policy of not having downstream patches, so that source trees upstream have to have the Apple Silicon fixes. That makes the process much more complex.
    - 6y ago

throw0101a 6y ago

> Apple doesn't really have any interest in making it easier for people to use Macs for anything that doesn't benefit their closed ecosystem - they are still ok with you using it for open source or enterprise work so long as they don't have to do anything special. That part of their stance has been very consistent. Besides being used internally as mentioned, making the Alpha Geeks (to use Tim O'Reilly's phrase) happy would be prudent for their continued success. If the Alpha Geeks aren't using your product, they will not recommended it to their friends when asked for computer advise, and it will not be installed in relatives' home where the Alpha Geeks tend to do tech support. The Alpha Geeks was how Apple probably got more popular that PCs in the first place, and they may now have a lot/enough inertial to keep moving forward, but Microsoft and PCs used to be the 800-pound (400 kg) gorilla, and they're less so now. There's a lot of Unix-y stuff being used in academy, research, and HPC: plenty of folks there would be just as willing to switch to a PC with Ubuntu/Debian/CentOS (which run the world's HPC clusters) if macOS gets in the way of their workflow if Homebrew or Macports don't work.

ChuckNorris89 6y ago
>The Alpha Geeks was how Apple probably got more popular that PCs in the first place At which point in time was that? From the statistics I could google in a few seconds, for the last 20 years, MacOS was always hovering around 10-15% of the worldwide desktop PC market share with Windows at around 75-85% and linux/BSD the rest of the scraps.
fjdjsmsm 6y ago
All of the Apple products that have achieved broader success have been derided by ‘Alpha Geeks.’ The original candy coloured iMacs, iPods, iPhones, iPads, were all attacked by geeks. If Microsoft is less successful in the home market now, it is because Windows is seen by many consumers as too techy, and too difficult.
vmchale 6y ago
> There's a lot of Unix-y stuff being used in academy, research, and HPC: plenty of folks there would be just as willing to switch to a PC with Ubuntu/Debian/CentOS (which run the world's HPC clusters) if macOS gets in the way of their workflow if Homebrew or Macports don't work. Absolutely. I'd say Linux is the default for science and ML!

user-the-name 6y ago

You know Boot Camp exists, right? That is a huge amount of work, done specifically by Apple themselves, in order to support running completely different OSes on their hardware.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

coliveira 6y ago

I consider that developing software for the Apple platform is a free job to benefit Apple. It rarely pays, and you need to be always on the look for ways Apple is breaking the platform on their frequent releases. I personally wouldn't do that unless I had a very clear motivation.