11 ms·

Very interesting overall. > Apple allows booting unsigned/custom kernels on Apple Silicon macs without a jailbreak! This isn’t a hack or an omission, but an ac

by libria 6y ago

Very interesting overall. > Apple allows booting unsigned/custom kernels on Apple Silicon macs without a jailbreak! This isn’t a hack or an omission, but an actual feature that Apple built into these devices. Indefinitely? How do we know it's a feature vs a temporarily convenient oversight? > Our goal is not just to make Linux run on these machines, but to polish it to the point where it can be used as a daily OS. Doing this requires a huge amount of work to be done, as Apple Silicon is a completely undocumented platform. In particular, we will be reverse engineering the Apple GPU architecture and developing an open source driver for it. This looks like the major bullet point. The wiki is currently empty, but while it's WIP, it would be nice to see some of the major milestones or breakdown of the goal mentioned above. Best of luck to Hector and the contributors!

Hamuko 6y ago
>Indefinitely? How do we know it's a feature vs a temporarily convenient oversight? Basically nothing can be known to be indefinite. But Apple has signaled that they'd be open for ARM Boot Camp if Microsoft was to sell non-OEM Windows for ARM licenses. So it seems like Apple might consider multi-booting a feature.
Klonoar 6y ago
>How do we know it's a feature vs a temporarily convenient oversight? Considering the level of GUI work that outright supports this feature in recovery mode on an M1, I'm inclined to think it's not an oversight.
Bluerise 6y ago
First of all the feature wasn't available in the initial Big Sur release and it only got available during the Betas for the first minor patch. Second of all, some Apple developer stated on Twitter that (during M1 unveil) he's finally able to show all the boot policy work they worked on the past year(s) to allow users to boot foreign OSes and without opening up holes for attackers. Basically it boils down to: they could have just used iBoot without changing it at all to keep it as a brick like the iPhone/iPad/Watch, but instead they invested plenty of resources to allow it. With all that work done to allow it, I'm sure there'll be plenty of people inside of Apple who'd protest if someone changes their mind and decides all this has to go away.
- raverbashing 6y ago
  I'd say there might be ongoing work to support Windows/BootCamp but in true Apple tradition (or maybe due to MS delays) it is being kept secret
  - brundolf 6y ago
    That would make a lot of sense. Windows is in a tight spot right now because OEMs have lagged on ARM. Apple could offer MS a way out of that, while at the same time giving people one more reason to spend money on a Mac.
    - _ph_ 6y ago
      Right, if MS is serious about Windows on ARM, they should support the Mac as a show case and also to allow all future Mac buyers the chance to run Windows. Of course, Apple can't announce much until Microsoft makes an announcement about Windows on AS Macs.
      - tibbydudeza 6y ago
        Is MS not busy looking at doing their own ARM silicon for future Windows powered Surface devices after release of M1 and the failure Qualcomm with the Snapdragon 8cx (we just use ARM reference designs) ???. They do have the chops for it since they have done Xbox and Hololens and various other devices in-house.
        Hamuko 6y ago
        https://www.theverge.com/2020/12/18/22189450/microsoft-arm-processors-chips-servers-surface-report https://www.theverge.com/2020/12/18/22189450/microsoft-arm-p... There are rumors.
        unilynx 6y ago
        Maybe they are already developing their own "MS1" in secret ? But even if they are, it would make sense to release Windows 10 for the M1 and getting Win-developers to start porting their applications to ARM, so they could leap-frog Apple on ARM if they manage to build a 'better' ARM SoC
ogre_codes 6y ago
> Indefinitely? How do we know it's a feature vs a temporarily convenient oversight? The fact that Apple documented it.
DCKing 6y ago
> Indefinitely? How do we know it's a feature vs a temporarily convenient oversight? I would point out that Apple has permitted booting alternative operating systems throughout their m68k (at least the m68ks that could meaningfully boot Linux or a BSD derivative) [1], PowerPC [2], and Intel [3] phases. It's only on Intel they actively made this a feature, because Windows Bootcamp probably allowed to sell them a certain percentage more Macs. The only reason to believe they would change this is that the Apple Silicon architecture changes would have Apple be interested in the Mac being some sort of equivalent to an iPod Touch. I don't really see Apple being interested in that, and Apple reps have gone on record to argue similar points as well. [1]: e.g. https://wiki.netbsd.org/ports/mac68k/ https://wiki.netbsd.org/ports/mac68k/ [2]: e.g. https://wiki.netbsd.org/ports/macppc/ https://wiki.netbsd.org/ports/macppc/ [3]: Uh, anything that boots on x86 EFI will probably boot.
- Teknoman117 6y ago
  And at that Bootcamp is a BIOS emulation layer. You don't need to go through the bootcamp process to run operating systems with native EFI support such as Linux, Windows 7+, etc.
  - marcan_42 6y ago
    I don't think recent Intel macs even support "Boot Camp" (CSM) any more. You need to go through UEFI, Boot Camp now is just a software wizard for getting UEFI Windows installed.
    - zinekeller 6y ago
      You're totally correct, it is indeed just putting the drivers on the installation media and partitioning magic.
      - Tsiklon 6y ago
        On 2017+ machines you don’t even need an external drive, during the partitioning setup it carves out a temporary partition to store the contents of the ISO + their drivers, windows installation customisation etc. And it’s all deleted after the installation of the drivers after windows is installed
chpmrc 6y ago
Apple adds limitations to protect the system: "too strict!" Apple gives the chance to disable these limitations to power users: "they should be disabled by default!" Apple disables limitations: "temporary convenient oversight?" ...
- ciwolsey 6y ago
  I see nothing wrong with any of these speculations. If you or Apple don't like speculation the answer is for them to communicate their intention.
  - machello13 6y ago
    They've plenty communicated their intention to not turn the Mac into the iPhone/iPad. And besides which, it would be a disastrous product strategy to do that, from a company that's absolutely top-of-the-ball when it comes to product strategy.
    - fsflover 6y ago
      Are you serious? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25074959 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25074959
      - machello13 6y ago
        Sorry, that seems like a total non sequitur to me. What about that (an outage + a failure to correctly handle the outage on the clientside) suggests Apple is planning to lock down macOS like iOS, either in terms of hardware or software? Or rather, maybe you'd like to explain what you think Apple would have to gain from doing something like that?
        fsflover 6y ago
        You cannot start any non-Apple applications unless Apple explicitly allows them and keeps a list of what and when you are running. Looks totally fine...
amelius 6y ago
> Indefinitely? How do we know it's a feature vs a temporarily convenient oversight? Apple could take most of the speculation/hostility away by simply giving their word for it. But they don't ...
scoopertrooper 6y ago
> Indefinitely? How do we know it's a feature vs a temporarily convenient oversight? Could not the same be said for any computer manufacturer? How do we know for sure Dell won't start locking down future XPS models?
marcan_42 6y ago
It's a feature because it's literally a whole set of command line options and settings in their boot policies, which is documented in man pages, with all the warnings about normal users not having to use any of this that you'd expect. It's a whole pile of code that Apple doesn't need, and could've just removed or never written in the first place, that was written explicitly and only so people could run unsigned kernels on Apple Silicon macs. Yup, the wiki is almost empty - I was hard at working getting the site/IRC/branding/etc worked out. Expect things to pick up steam on that front starting tomorrow, as I will now focus on hardware documentation and getting things through low-level boot bring-up.
- GordonS 6y ago
  This is really promising, but I do think scepticism is warranted - Apple loves their walled gardens.
  - abestic9 6y ago
    There's a not-insignificant number of people that want to do more with their Mac than run software from a single marketplace.
    - zarkov99 6y ago
      Yes, I am one, but is Apple really better off selling more machines but having fewer people inside their eco-system?
      - tadfisher 6y ago
        Presumably those people would just not buy Apple hardware if buying into the ecosystem was a requirement. So if that number is non-zero, and Apple sells hardware above cost, then yes, Apple is better off selling only its hardware and not its services to this small subset of the market.
        zarkov99 6y ago
Pokepokalypse 6y ago
Seems to me that it would also be a great opportunity to port each of these builds to a homebrew package.
Abishek_Muthian 6y ago
Except for potential Anti-trust litigation, I don't see any reason for Apple to 'not lock' its M series computers from boot loader to app store in the near future as the walled garden + vertical integration has been their most successful business strategy. One should be naive to think that the conversion to M-series wasn't done with the intention to lock the macOS platform akin to iOS. I wouldn't be even surprised if doing so didn't attract anti-trust issues as they got away with iPhone, iPad which are not lesser computer than a PC especially since several applications are becoming 'mobile first' or even 'mobile only'; So it's ridiculous to compare smartphones, tablets to game consoles whenever this topic is brought to the discussion.
monopoledance 6y ago
If Apple would cooperate just a tiny bit, I assume the Linux community would gladly do all the rest for them. The M1 Macbooks are actually quite reasonably priced IMO. Right now it's even hard to find an AMD Ryzen 4000 laptop with >FHD screens... If you get Linux developers onto your platform, you unlock the server market, I assume. I don't get why Apple would not open that possibility for their silicon future. I think a downside to have Macs running Linux would be extended hardware support and evasion of their obsolescence strategies. Overall, I think they could win a lot, so there is a desperate hope they change their minds on that. At least, I would be completely lost on them, if AMD manages to match their performance and there gonna be well-screened AMD laptops. Apple, you got this current advantage to win people like me over. Once the others catch up, this opportunity will probably not arise again, as I will never ever settle on MacOS or Windows, especially with the current course of increasingly restricting how I could use a >1.5k€ device. If the M1 Air had proper Linux support (at least committed), I would buy right now in an instant. I naively believe, if you don't get Linux people like me, Apple's silicon endeavour will not get a hold in the larger CPU/GPU market.

by libria 6y ago

Hamuko 6y ago

>Indefinitely? How do we know it's a feature vs a temporarily convenient oversight? Basically nothing can be known to be indefinite. But Apple has signaled that they'd be open for ARM Boot Camp if Microsoft was to sell non-OEM Windows for ARM licenses. So it seems like Apple might consider multi-booting a feature.

Klonoar 6y ago

>How do we know it's a feature vs a temporarily convenient oversight? Considering the level of GUI work that outright supports this feature in recovery mode on an M1, I'm inclined to think it's not an oversight.

Bluerise 6y ago

First of all the feature wasn't available in the initial Big Sur release and it only got available during the Betas for the first minor patch. Second of all, some Apple developer stated on Twitter that (during M1 unveil) he's finally able to show all the boot policy work they worked on the past year(s) to allow users to boot foreign OSes and without opening up holes for attackers. Basically it boils down to: they could have just used iBoot without changing it at all to keep it as a brick like the iPhone/iPad/Watch, but instead they invested plenty of resources to allow it. With all that work done to allow it, I'm sure there'll be plenty of people inside of Apple who'd protest if someone changes their mind and decides all this has to go away.

raverbashing 6y ago
I'd say there might be ongoing work to support Windows/BootCamp but in true Apple tradition (or maybe due to MS delays) it is being kept secret
- brundolf 6y ago
  That would make a lot of sense. Windows is in a tight spot right now because OEMs have lagged on ARM. Apple could offer MS a way out of that, while at the same time giving people one more reason to spend money on a Mac.
  - _ph_ 6y ago
    Right, if MS is serious about Windows on ARM, they should support the Mac as a show case and also to allow all future Mac buyers the chance to run Windows. Of course, Apple can't announce much until Microsoft makes an announcement about Windows on AS Macs.
    - tibbydudeza 6y ago
      Is MS not busy looking at doing their own ARM silicon for future Windows powered Surface devices after release of M1 and the failure Qualcomm with the Snapdragon 8cx (we just use ARM reference designs) ???. They do have the chops for it since they have done Xbox and Hololens and various other devices in-house.
      - Hamuko 6y ago
        https://www.theverge.com/2020/12/18/22189450/microsoft-arm-processors-chips-servers-surface-report https://www.theverge.com/2020/12/18/22189450/microsoft-arm-p... There are rumors.
      - unilynx 6y ago
        Maybe they are already developing their own "MS1" in secret ? But even if they are, it would make sense to release Windows 10 for the M1 and getting Win-developers to start porting their applications to ARM, so they could leap-frog Apple on ARM if they manage to build a 'better' ARM SoC

ogre_codes 6y ago

> Indefinitely? How do we know it's a feature vs a temporarily convenient oversight? The fact that Apple documented it.

DCKing 6y ago

> Indefinitely? How do we know it's a feature vs a temporarily convenient oversight? I would point out that Apple has permitted booting alternative operating systems throughout their m68k (at least the m68ks that could meaningfully boot Linux or a BSD derivative) [1], PowerPC [2], and Intel [3] phases. It's only on Intel they actively made this a feature, because Windows Bootcamp probably allowed to sell them a certain percentage more Macs. The only reason to believe they would change this is that the Apple Silicon architecture changes would have Apple be interested in the Mac being some sort of equivalent to an iPod Touch. I don't really see Apple being interested in that, and Apple reps have gone on record to argue similar points as well. [1]: e.g. https://wiki.netbsd.org/ports/mac68k/ https://wiki.netbsd.org/ports/mac68k/ [2]: e.g. https://wiki.netbsd.org/ports/macppc/ https://wiki.netbsd.org/ports/macppc/ [3]: Uh, anything that boots on x86 EFI will probably boot.

Teknoman117 6y ago
And at that Bootcamp is a BIOS emulation layer. You don't need to go through the bootcamp process to run operating systems with native EFI support such as Linux, Windows 7+, etc.
- marcan_42 6y ago
  I don't think recent Intel macs even support "Boot Camp" (CSM) any more. You need to go through UEFI, Boot Camp now is just a software wizard for getting UEFI Windows installed.
  - zinekeller 6y ago
    You're totally correct, it is indeed just putting the drivers on the installation media and partitioning magic.
    - Tsiklon 6y ago
      On 2017+ machines you don’t even need an external drive, during the partitioning setup it carves out a temporary partition to store the contents of the ISO + their drivers, windows installation customisation etc. And it’s all deleted after the installation of the drivers after windows is installed

chpmrc 6y ago

Apple adds limitations to protect the system: "too strict!" Apple gives the chance to disable these limitations to power users: "they should be disabled by default!" Apple disables limitations: "temporary convenient oversight?" ...

ciwolsey 6y ago
I see nothing wrong with any of these speculations. If you or Apple don't like speculation the answer is for them to communicate their intention.
- machello13 6y ago
  They've plenty communicated their intention to not turn the Mac into the iPhone/iPad. And besides which, it would be a disastrous product strategy to do that, from a company that's absolutely top-of-the-ball when it comes to product strategy.
  - fsflover 6y ago
    Are you serious? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25074959 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25074959
    - machello13 6y ago
      Sorry, that seems like a total non sequitur to me. What about that (an outage + a failure to correctly handle the outage on the clientside) suggests Apple is planning to lock down macOS like iOS, either in terms of hardware or software? Or rather, maybe you'd like to explain what you think Apple would have to gain from doing something like that?
      - fsflover 6y ago
        You cannot start any non-Apple applications unless Apple explicitly allows them and keeps a list of what and when you are running. Looks totally fine...

amelius 6y ago

> Indefinitely? How do we know it's a feature vs a temporarily convenient oversight? Apple could take most of the speculation/hostility away by simply giving their word for it. But they don't ...

scoopertrooper 6y ago

> Indefinitely? How do we know it's a feature vs a temporarily convenient oversight? Could not the same be said for any computer manufacturer? How do we know for sure Dell won't start locking down future XPS models?

marcan_42 6y ago

It's a feature because it's literally a whole set of command line options and settings in their boot policies, which is documented in man pages, with all the warnings about normal users not having to use any of this that you'd expect. It's a whole pile of code that Apple doesn't need, and could've just removed or never written in the first place, that was written explicitly and only so people could run unsigned kernels on Apple Silicon macs. Yup, the wiki is almost empty - I was hard at working getting the site/IRC/branding/etc worked out. Expect things to pick up steam on that front starting tomorrow, as I will now focus on hardware documentation and getting things through low-level boot bring-up.

GordonS 6y ago
This is really promising, but I do think scepticism is warranted - Apple loves their walled gardens.
- abestic9 6y ago
  There's a not-insignificant number of people that want to do more with their Mac than run software from a single marketplace.
  - zarkov99 6y ago
    Yes, I am one, but is Apple really better off selling more machines but having fewer people inside their eco-system?
    - tadfisher 6y ago
      Presumably those people would just not buy Apple hardware if buying into the ecosystem was a requirement. So if that number is non-zero, and Apple sells hardware above cost, then yes, Apple is better off selling only its hardware and not its services to this small subset of the market.
      - zarkov99 6y ago

Pokepokalypse 6y ago

Seems to me that it would also be a great opportunity to port each of these builds to a homebrew package.

Abishek_Muthian 6y ago

Except for potential Anti-trust litigation, I don't see any reason for Apple to 'not lock' its M series computers from boot loader to app store in the near future as the walled garden + vertical integration has been their most successful business strategy. One should be naive to think that the conversion to M-series wasn't done with the intention to lock the macOS platform akin to iOS. I wouldn't be even surprised if doing so didn't attract anti-trust issues as they got away with iPhone, iPad which are not lesser computer than a PC especially since several applications are becoming 'mobile first' or even 'mobile only'; So it's ridiculous to compare smartphones, tablets to game consoles whenever this topic is brought to the discussion.

monopoledance 6y ago

If Apple would cooperate just a tiny bit, I assume the Linux community would gladly do all the rest for them. The M1 Macbooks are actually quite reasonably priced IMO. Right now it's even hard to find an AMD Ryzen 4000 laptop with >FHD screens... If you get Linux developers onto your platform, you unlock the server market, I assume. I don't get why Apple would not open that possibility for their silicon future. I think a downside to have Macs running Linux would be extended hardware support and evasion of their obsolescence strategies. Overall, I think they could win a lot, so there is a desperate hope they change their minds on that. At least, I would be completely lost on them, if AMD manages to match their performance and there gonna be well-screened AMD laptops. Apple, you got this current advantage to win people like me over. Once the others catch up, this opportunity will probably not arise again, as I will never ever settle on MacOS or Windows, especially with the current course of increasingly restricting how I could use a >1.5k€ device. If the M1 Air had proper Linux support (at least committed), I would buy right now in an instant. I naively believe, if you don't get Linux people like me, Apple's silicon endeavour will not get a hold in the larger CPU/GPU market.