11 ms·

So much for the many remarks made on HN claiming that Apple would use the M1 to further exert control over users’ ability to boot an alternative OS. Between thi

So much for the many remarks made on HN claiming that Apple would use the M1 to further exert control over users’ ability to boot an alternative OS. Between this and Asahi Linux, I’d say things are off to a good start. Btw, Asahi has a Patreon page for anyone who wants to contribute. I’m tossing twelve bucks a month and recommend any Mac users with interest in booting alternative OSes support such projects. Now I’m gonna see if there’s an option to throw money at this.

asveikau 6y ago
To be fair that wasn't the only type of knee jerk negative reaction here on this topic. IIRC there was another, more Apple-fan style commentary of "a free OS will never run on this bespoke Apple product, and shouldn't". I for one am glad people are making progress.
- djrogers 6y ago
  I’ve read just about every M1 story and thread on HN since launch, and one of us is apparently mis-reading some posts here. I have never seen anything that I could remotely interpret as matching that sentiment.
  - mhh__ 6y ago
    I didn't see it on the M1 threads but there have been some bizarrely "Corporations are not only people, but my friend"-ish arguments about "sideloading" (i.e. running software on a device you paid for!) on Apple products in general. In short, "But think of my Grandma" as opposed to think of the children.
    - mhh__ 6y ago
      Can no one even be bothered to debate the point?
      - paulmd 6y ago
        you're misrepresenting the point, the point people make is that apple curating apps on the app store is a good thing for user privacy and minimizing spyware, and that allowing sideloading or third-party app stores would immediately negate that as some of the biggest, most intrusive, and most socially-inescapeable apps (like facebook) would immediately demand they be sideloaded in order to escape the apple rules on permissions/user surveillance/etc. nobody thinks apple is doing it because they're their friend. And they know apple is making money off it. Some people prefer having apps with limited, audited permissions over a more wild-west approach where you could install anything and apps could demand anything or prevent you from using the app. (and if you don't that's fine, Android exists and no apple users mind that. Market choices are good, stop trying to shut down Apple's ability to provide a different experience.) if you really really want to sideload an app on an apple phone, pay the $50 a year for a developer account and you can compile and sideload whatever you want. Same for xbox btw, you can run any UWP app on an Xbox if you have a developer account.
        mhh__ 6y ago
        I'm sure microsoft would've made the same argument in their anti-trust case - you're free to "sideload" any browser you want, or just buy a mac. Most apple users have almost zero-information in an economic sense. Market choices are being made when consumers are being segmented into very rigid, hard to leave, cultures like Apple and Google - on top of that Apple and partly google own much of the stores, they do all the marketing, and can wield considerable basically unchecked power over their users. And also, your mum isn't going to be using third party app stores, that whole part of the argument is quite vacuous and is effectively a logical basis for Apple to have complete oversight of everything on the app. And if she did want to play fortnite, Apple obviously aren't doing this for the goodness of their customers because they only pulled the plug when fortnite did the payments itself - that's just rentseeking.
        paulmd 6y ago
        > I'm sure microsoft would've made the same argument in their anti-trust case OK, let's talk Microsoft then. https://www.theverge.com/2020/6/19/21296657/microsoft-apple-app-store-antitrust-comments https://www.theverge.com/2020/6/19/21296657/microsoft-apple-... Microsoft is making exactly the same argument as Epic Games, in fact, but they're not racing to allow third-party app stores on the Xbox either. This is a one-way street, these companies want to sell locked-down hardware but be allowed onto their competitors' platforms. Similarly Facebook runs similarly exclusive stores on their Oculus Quest platform, which they also argue they should not have to open up. This is purely down to companies who themselves employ similarly locked-down stores, which they feel should not have to be similarly opened, wrapping themselves in the language of openness and using it to attack their competitors' business models while arguing they themselves should be excluded. They are not making a good-faith argument for openness, they are using the legal system to take down a competitor. Frankly I have much less problem with Microsoft opening up, since we don't do day-to-day business on our game consoles. How about they go first, model for us how an ethical company is supposed to behave? > And also, your mum isn't going to be using third party app stores, Yeah, actually, she will, that is the point. If she wants to use Facebook, she will use a third-party app store (where the application is not subject to Apple's rules about permissions and datamining). This is an immediate race to the bottom, won't even be a year and the superior privacy of the Apple ecosystem will have been completely undermined.
- chipotle_coyote 6y ago
  Like djrogers, I can't honestly say that I've seen a comment like that. I recall ones more like "I'm not interested in running another OS on my Mac" and "if you wanted to run Linux, why would you buy a Mac," but those really aren't the same sentiment.
  - asveikau 6y ago
    Maybe you are more accurately describing it. Some of them also say that free OSs are often behind on Mac hardware anyway, even on Intel. But the implication that I read into it is there's little reason to do it.
    - ogre_codes 6y ago
      No big mystery here, people who buy Macs, prefer MacOS and don't see why you'd bother with Desktop Linux in general. I'm personally interested in Linux on the Mac as a curiosity and as an alternative in case Apple ever screws up MacOS so much I feel desktop Linux is the least bad alternative.
      - asveikau 6y ago
        I think M1 is a perfect example of why one might want to consider Apple's hardware and software in isolation, rather than a single integrated piece. There isn't currently another ARM laptop with the same performance characteristics. There have been other times when I thought apple hardware was more interesting than macOS. I don't think macOS is bad per se. There are times when I find it pleasant and times when I would greatly prefer something else. The attitude we're describing -- why use Linux when there is macOS?? -- strikes me as a little odd, because there is a built in hostility and assumption that everyone shares the Mac fan's opinions and preferences, universally and in all circumstances.
        ogre_codes 6y ago
        I get it. It's a matter of perspective. As a Linux/ OpenBSD user, Mac hardware is suddenly a bit more appealing. As a Mac user, the reverse it not true. OpenBSD or Linux are no more appealing than it was before the switch. As for the rest of your post, I feel like the conversation is moving here under me. Use whatever OS you want. I don't see a ton of Mac people on here discouraging or disparaging any of this. I do see a a fair number of posts like the top one. "Running an alternative OS natively on a Mac doesn't seem very appealing to me." Which I don't see as the same as what you are suggesting.
- alsetmusic 6y ago
  > IIRC there was another, more Apple-fan style commentary of "a free OS will never run on this bespoke Apple product, and shouldn't". I’m the person to whom you are responding. I’m very interested in the M1 and never saw such a post. I’ve literally never heard anyone express this view about a Mac.
mhh__ 6y ago
> Now I’m gonna see if there’s an option to throw money at this. Even if I were God I wouldn't stop anyone doing it, but does it not leave a bad taste in your mouth that Apple charge the best part of 2 thousand dollars for a laptop with a basically brand-new (so not rotted) stack but utterly refuse to document anything beyond the absolute basics - this is the world's largest tech company, from which I conclude that they have no interest in allowing users to control their own hardware since it's literally chump change for them to (say) publish some extremely basic info about the peripherals like even nvidia do now.
- xiphias2 6y ago
  Apple needs open source hackers to port all open source software to M1 chips for free before locking them more down. To be honest I just ordered my first MacBook Pro as well, so I guess I’m part of the ,,problem’’
  - saagarjha 6y ago
    That makes very little sense. What does Apple get out of letting people run Linux and OpenBSD, then preventing it?
    - Wowfunhappy 6y ago
      ...to play devil's advocate a bit (because I really do agree with you), I could have asked the same question about Linux on the PS3, and we all know how that ended.
      - saagarjha 6y ago
        I run a “Hacker News advocate” against the comments I post, and this was one of the things I thought of. You will note that in that case Sony actually suffered quite a bit in their response, and they only really did it out of fears of piracy. In this case the I believe backlash will be fairly large, not the least from their own platform security people for having years of their work invalidated. Also, in this case the only thing I can see that could drive them to do this would be if FairPlay keys were somehow made available in the fully unsigned OS environment: I haven’t really looked into this (don’t have my M1 Mac yet) but I would be very surprised if so.
TheRealSteel 6y ago
That wasn't an assumption or knee-jerk reaction. Apple went on record as saying other operating systems wouldn't boot on Apple Silicon. Admittedly there's enough vagueness that they didn't 100% rule it out completely, but I think it was a fair interpretation of what they said at the time. Craig Federighi said this when talking to John Gruber: "We're not direct booting an alternate operating system, it's... purely virtualization is the route. But these hypervisors can be very efficient, so the need to direct boot shouldn't be the concern." https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/hfkdlg/craig_federighi_confirms_apple_silicon_macs_will/ https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/hfkdlg/craig_federig...
- ogre_codes 6y ago
  You are quoting a reddit comment which mis-interpreted what Federighi said. They didn't say they would prevent alternative operating systems from booting, only that they aren't doing it. As opposed to the fact that they are in fact helping get Linux running in the hypervisor and actually demoed Linux running in a VM before it was public. Apple documented how people could boot alternative operating systems.
  - rudedogg 6y ago
    They're quoting Craig Federighi: https://youtu.be/Hg9F1Qjv3iU?t=3794 https://youtu.be/Hg9F1Qjv3iU?t=3794 I don't get the downvotes of the parent post, the interpretation is completely reasonable. The point is that Apple was very clear that they are only supporting macOS on their hardware.
    - ogre_codes 6y ago
      I know who they are quoting. I also re-listened to what he said because at the time I'd made the same assumption. Apple execs are infamously careful about how they word things. Federighi could have said they won't allow other operating systems, but he didn't because that's not what they did or were planning. If they didn't intend for this to be possible, they wouldn't have shipped it this way and documented how to do it.
mjg59 6y ago
At the point the hardware shipped, it was impossible to boot non-Apple operating systems on M1 systems. Post-release updates added this, but Apple had not publicly committed to doing so before that.
- saagarjha 6y ago
  Apple committed to this during WWDC, when they mentioned that they would have an option to dial the boot security back.
  - mjg59 6y ago
    WWDC included discussion of "Reduced security" mode, which allows downgrading to old signed versions of MacOS, but I don't remember any disclosure of plans to permit arbitrary operating systems at that point - do you have a pointer? Edit: The transcript at https://developer.apple.com/videos/play/wwdc2020/10686/ https://developer.apple.com/videos/play/wwdc2020/10686/ discusses reduced security, but doesn't say anything about booting arbitrary code.
    - saagarjha 6y ago
      You found the right talk, but it’s actually only waved at and not explicitly discussed so it’s not in the transcript. At about 19 minutes the engineer mentions that a csrutil will be able to do more things and on the slide disabling secure boot is one of them. (This actually got moved into bputil, but the intent was there at least.)
      - mjg59 6y ago
        That indicates that csrutil would be able to do /something/ with secure boot policy, but I really don't interpret that as a commitment to being able to boot arbitrary operating systems - if we were still unable to do so today, I don't think you'd be able to put up a strong argument that Apple had broken a commitment.
        6y ago
linuxhansl 6y ago
I'm not sure I understand what Apple contributed here. It's not supported, helped, or encouraged by Apple. And Apple does not document their H/W in ways that allow reuse. Hence these are all reverse engineering projects. Apple _is_ a walled garden ecosystem. That has many obvious advantages, things just work, etc. Personally I happen to not like it, but it's a choice folks have to make by themselves. I buy my H/W from vendors that actually support running Linux (in my case) like Dell, Lenovo, and others.
- Wowfunhappy 6y ago
  They explicitly built a mechanism for loading alternate OS's. I'm not going to sing Apple's praises over that or anything, but it means that Macs are still an order of magnitude less locked down than, say, an iPhone. You have the ability to do whatever you want with a Mac... provided you figure out how.
  - saagarjha 6y ago
    Infinitely, really, since on iOS it’s zero and on macOS it is nonzero ;) Of course, on macOS it’s still not a lot, but you can see why everyone is excited about what Apple is offering right now.
- zepto 6y ago
  > Apple _is_ a walled garden ecosystem. That has many obvious advantages, things just work, etc. This is just false. iOS is a walled garden. The Mac is not by anyone’s definition.
  - ogre_codes 6y ago
    > The Mac is not by anyone’s definition. Seems to me like a whole lot of arguments about Apple involve changing accepted definitions of things or using different standards for Apple versus others. Apple does enough things wrong and I'm perfectly willing to accept those things and understand when people are frustrated by those things. No need to invent whole new things or shift definitions just so you can complain about them.
bubblethink 6y ago
Wait till you get to wifi, power management, suspend resume, etc. The fact that linux (I know this post is about OpenBSD) boots on some random piece of hardware is commendable, but not that surprising in 2021.
unglaublich 6y ago
This achievement, solely made possible by the OpenBSD team, does not contradict that statement about Apple, in any way.
- dwaite 6y ago
  Also somewhat made possible by other teams as well as by Apple who added a mechanism to let alternative operating systems boot.

asveikau 6y ago

To be fair that wasn't the only type of knee jerk negative reaction here on this topic. IIRC there was another, more Apple-fan style commentary of "a free OS will never run on this bespoke Apple product, and shouldn't". I for one am glad people are making progress.

djrogers 6y ago
I’ve read just about every M1 story and thread on HN since launch, and one of us is apparently mis-reading some posts here. I have never seen anything that I could remotely interpret as matching that sentiment.
- mhh__ 6y ago
  I didn't see it on the M1 threads but there have been some bizarrely "Corporations are not only people, but my friend"-ish arguments about "sideloading" (i.e. running software on a device you paid for!) on Apple products in general. In short, "But think of my Grandma" as opposed to think of the children.
  - mhh__ 6y ago
    Can no one even be bothered to debate the point?
    - paulmd 6y ago
      you're misrepresenting the point, the point people make is that apple curating apps on the app store is a good thing for user privacy and minimizing spyware, and that allowing sideloading or third-party app stores would immediately negate that as some of the biggest, most intrusive, and most socially-inescapeable apps (like facebook) would immediately demand they be sideloaded in order to escape the apple rules on permissions/user surveillance/etc. nobody thinks apple is doing it because they're their friend. And they know apple is making money off it. Some people prefer having apps with limited, audited permissions over a more wild-west approach where you could install anything and apps could demand anything or prevent you from using the app. (and if you don't that's fine, Android exists and no apple users mind that. Market choices are good, stop trying to shut down Apple's ability to provide a different experience.) if you really really want to sideload an app on an apple phone, pay the $50 a year for a developer account and you can compile and sideload whatever you want. Same for xbox btw, you can run any UWP app on an Xbox if you have a developer account.
      - mhh__ 6y ago
        I'm sure microsoft would've made the same argument in their anti-trust case - you're free to "sideload" any browser you want, or just buy a mac. Most apple users have almost zero-information in an economic sense. Market choices are being made when consumers are being segmented into very rigid, hard to leave, cultures like Apple and Google - on top of that Apple and partly google own much of the stores, they do all the marketing, and can wield considerable basically unchecked power over their users. And also, your mum isn't going to be using third party app stores, that whole part of the argument is quite vacuous and is effectively a logical basis for Apple to have complete oversight of everything on the app. And if she did want to play fortnite, Apple obviously aren't doing this for the goodness of their customers because they only pulled the plug when fortnite did the payments itself - that's just rentseeking.
        paulmd 6y ago
        > I'm sure microsoft would've made the same argument in their anti-trust case OK, let's talk Microsoft then. https://www.theverge.com/2020/6/19/21296657/microsoft-apple-app-store-antitrust-comments https://www.theverge.com/2020/6/19/21296657/microsoft-apple-... Microsoft is making exactly the same argument as Epic Games, in fact, but they're not racing to allow third-party app stores on the Xbox either. This is a one-way street, these companies want to sell locked-down hardware but be allowed onto their competitors' platforms. Similarly Facebook runs similarly exclusive stores on their Oculus Quest platform, which they also argue they should not have to open up. This is purely down to companies who themselves employ similarly locked-down stores, which they feel should not have to be similarly opened, wrapping themselves in the language of openness and using it to attack their competitors' business models while arguing they themselves should be excluded. They are not making a good-faith argument for openness, they are using the legal system to take down a competitor. Frankly I have much less problem with Microsoft opening up, since we don't do day-to-day business on our game consoles. How about they go first, model for us how an ethical company is supposed to behave? > And also, your mum isn't going to be using third party app stores, Yeah, actually, she will, that is the point. If she wants to use Facebook, she will use a third-party app store (where the application is not subject to Apple's rules about permissions and datamining). This is an immediate race to the bottom, won't even be a year and the superior privacy of the Apple ecosystem will have been completely undermined.
chipotle_coyote 6y ago
Like djrogers, I can't honestly say that I've seen a comment like that. I recall ones more like "I'm not interested in running another OS on my Mac" and "if you wanted to run Linux, why would you buy a Mac," but those really aren't the same sentiment.
- asveikau 6y ago
  Maybe you are more accurately describing it. Some of them also say that free OSs are often behind on Mac hardware anyway, even on Intel. But the implication that I read into it is there's little reason to do it.
  - ogre_codes 6y ago
    No big mystery here, people who buy Macs, prefer MacOS and don't see why you'd bother with Desktop Linux in general. I'm personally interested in Linux on the Mac as a curiosity and as an alternative in case Apple ever screws up MacOS so much I feel desktop Linux is the least bad alternative.
    - asveikau 6y ago
      I think M1 is a perfect example of why one might want to consider Apple's hardware and software in isolation, rather than a single integrated piece. There isn't currently another ARM laptop with the same performance characteristics. There have been other times when I thought apple hardware was more interesting than macOS. I don't think macOS is bad per se. There are times when I find it pleasant and times when I would greatly prefer something else. The attitude we're describing -- why use Linux when there is macOS?? -- strikes me as a little odd, because there is a built in hostility and assumption that everyone shares the Mac fan's opinions and preferences, universally and in all circumstances.
      - ogre_codes 6y ago
        I get it. It's a matter of perspective. As a Linux/ OpenBSD user, Mac hardware is suddenly a bit more appealing. As a Mac user, the reverse it not true. OpenBSD or Linux are no more appealing than it was before the switch. As for the rest of your post, I feel like the conversation is moving here under me. Use whatever OS you want. I don't see a ton of Mac people on here discouraging or disparaging any of this. I do see a a fair number of posts like the top one. "Running an alternative OS natively on a Mac doesn't seem very appealing to me." Which I don't see as the same as what you are suggesting.
alsetmusic 6y ago
> IIRC there was another, more Apple-fan style commentary of "a free OS will never run on this bespoke Apple product, and shouldn't". I’m the person to whom you are responding. I’m very interested in the M1 and never saw such a post. I’ve literally never heard anyone express this view about a Mac.

mhh__ 6y ago

> Now I’m gonna see if there’s an option to throw money at this. Even if I were God I wouldn't stop anyone doing it, but does it not leave a bad taste in your mouth that Apple charge the best part of 2 thousand dollars for a laptop with a basically brand-new (so not rotted) stack but utterly refuse to document anything beyond the absolute basics - this is the world's largest tech company, from which I conclude that they have no interest in allowing users to control their own hardware since it's literally chump change for them to (say) publish some extremely basic info about the peripherals like even nvidia do now.

xiphias2 6y ago
Apple needs open source hackers to port all open source software to M1 chips for free before locking them more down. To be honest I just ordered my first MacBook Pro as well, so I guess I’m part of the ,,problem’’
- saagarjha 6y ago
  That makes very little sense. What does Apple get out of letting people run Linux and OpenBSD, then preventing it?
  - Wowfunhappy 6y ago
    ...to play devil's advocate a bit (because I really do agree with you), I could have asked the same question about Linux on the PS3, and we all know how that ended.
    - saagarjha 6y ago
      I run a “Hacker News advocate” against the comments I post, and this was one of the things I thought of. You will note that in that case Sony actually suffered quite a bit in their response, and they only really did it out of fears of piracy. In this case the I believe backlash will be fairly large, not the least from their own platform security people for having years of their work invalidated. Also, in this case the only thing I can see that could drive them to do this would be if FairPlay keys were somehow made available in the fully unsigned OS environment: I haven’t really looked into this (don’t have my M1 Mac yet) but I would be very surprised if so.

TheRealSteel 6y ago

That wasn't an assumption or knee-jerk reaction. Apple went on record as saying other operating systems wouldn't boot on Apple Silicon. Admittedly there's enough vagueness that they didn't 100% rule it out completely, but I think it was a fair interpretation of what they said at the time. Craig Federighi said this when talking to John Gruber: "We're not direct booting an alternate operating system, it's... purely virtualization is the route. But these hypervisors can be very efficient, so the need to direct boot shouldn't be the concern." https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/hfkdlg/craig_federighi_confirms_apple_silicon_macs_will/ https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/hfkdlg/craig_federig...

ogre_codes 6y ago
You are quoting a reddit comment which mis-interpreted what Federighi said. They didn't say they would prevent alternative operating systems from booting, only that they aren't doing it. As opposed to the fact that they are in fact helping get Linux running in the hypervisor and actually demoed Linux running in a VM before it was public. Apple documented how people could boot alternative operating systems.
- rudedogg 6y ago
  They're quoting Craig Federighi: https://youtu.be/Hg9F1Qjv3iU?t=3794 https://youtu.be/Hg9F1Qjv3iU?t=3794 I don't get the downvotes of the parent post, the interpretation is completely reasonable. The point is that Apple was very clear that they are only supporting macOS on their hardware.
  - ogre_codes 6y ago
    I know who they are quoting. I also re-listened to what he said because at the time I'd made the same assumption. Apple execs are infamously careful about how they word things. Federighi could have said they won't allow other operating systems, but he didn't because that's not what they did or were planning. If they didn't intend for this to be possible, they wouldn't have shipped it this way and documented how to do it.

mjg59 6y ago

At the point the hardware shipped, it was impossible to boot non-Apple operating systems on M1 systems. Post-release updates added this, but Apple had not publicly committed to doing so before that.

saagarjha 6y ago
Apple committed to this during WWDC, when they mentioned that they would have an option to dial the boot security back.
- mjg59 6y ago
  WWDC included discussion of "Reduced security" mode, which allows downgrading to old signed versions of MacOS, but I don't remember any disclosure of plans to permit arbitrary operating systems at that point - do you have a pointer? Edit: The transcript at https://developer.apple.com/videos/play/wwdc2020/10686/ https://developer.apple.com/videos/play/wwdc2020/10686/ discusses reduced security, but doesn't say anything about booting arbitrary code.
  - saagarjha 6y ago
    You found the right talk, but it’s actually only waved at and not explicitly discussed so it’s not in the transcript. At about 19 minutes the engineer mentions that a csrutil will be able to do more things and on the slide disabling secure boot is one of them. (This actually got moved into bputil, but the intent was there at least.)
    - mjg59 6y ago
      That indicates that csrutil would be able to do /something/ with secure boot policy, but I really don't interpret that as a commitment to being able to boot arbitrary operating systems - if we were still unable to do so today, I don't think you'd be able to put up a strong argument that Apple had broken a commitment.
      - 6y ago

linuxhansl 6y ago

I'm not sure I understand what Apple contributed here. It's not supported, helped, or encouraged by Apple. And Apple does not document their H/W in ways that allow reuse. Hence these are all reverse engineering projects. Apple _is_ a walled garden ecosystem. That has many obvious advantages, things just work, etc. Personally I happen to not like it, but it's a choice folks have to make by themselves. I buy my H/W from vendors that actually support running Linux (in my case) like Dell, Lenovo, and others.

Wowfunhappy 6y ago
They explicitly built a mechanism for loading alternate OS's. I'm not going to sing Apple's praises over that or anything, but it means that Macs are still an order of magnitude less locked down than, say, an iPhone. You have the ability to do whatever you want with a Mac... provided you figure out how.
- saagarjha 6y ago
  Infinitely, really, since on iOS it’s zero and on macOS it is nonzero ;) Of course, on macOS it’s still not a lot, but you can see why everyone is excited about what Apple is offering right now.
zepto 6y ago
> Apple _is_ a walled garden ecosystem. That has many obvious advantages, things just work, etc. This is just false. iOS is a walled garden. The Mac is not by anyone’s definition.
- ogre_codes 6y ago
  > The Mac is not by anyone’s definition. Seems to me like a whole lot of arguments about Apple involve changing accepted definitions of things or using different standards for Apple versus others. Apple does enough things wrong and I'm perfectly willing to accept those things and understand when people are frustrated by those things. No need to invent whole new things or shift definitions just so you can complain about them.

bubblethink 6y ago

Wait till you get to wifi, power management, suspend resume, etc. The fact that linux (I know this post is about OpenBSD) boots on some random piece of hardware is commendable, but not that surprising in 2021.

unglaublich 6y ago

This achievement, solely made possible by the OpenBSD team, does not contradict that statement about Apple, in any way.

dwaite 6y ago
Also somewhat made possible by other teams as well as by Apple who added a mechanism to let alternative operating systems boot.