3 ms·

Insinuations against particular individuals are against the guidelines, not a blanket ban on mentioning that astroturfing / shillings are an accepted reality of

Insinuations against particular individuals are against the guidelines, not a blanket ban on mentioning that astroturfing / shillings are an accepted reality of today's social media as part of social media marketing. And I recognize that sometimes what is said is out of ignorance on the part of the poster, (which is what I have highlighted). That said, I have no hesitation in pointing out that that calling my posts "uninformed", without actually providing any actual context, is just a lazy and aggressive way of avoiding a discussion. Or you can engage with me and point out where my reasoning is flawed. Here's my stated position and reasoning for what I have said so far, and you can chime in with you thoughts: First, I started by pointing out that the beliefs of some Apple fans that Apple has made it easy and / or is actually helping developers to port Linux to the M1 is pure ignorance - Apple is doing no such things, but it is in their interest to let the public believe that. What is uninformed about this, in your opinion? Second, I voiced the opinion that "open source developers are wasting their time trying to support such a useless "closed" piece of hardware, and instead should be boycotting it". The reasoning behind it is obvious - supporting a closed black box system, like the M1, and the proliferation of such devices will mean we will lose more of our computing freedom / right-to-repair on the computers we own. Is it "uninformed" to point out that the M1 is a closed system that limits us, compared to Intel / AMD alternatives available? Or that the efforts of the developers will be a waste when Apple can, at any time, thwart or derail such reverse engineering attempts on the M1 by updating its firmware? Third, porting Linux to the M1 will make it attractive, and help its sale. But it is a short-sighted and regressive move that will not help the open-source movement, and will backfire on us as it will help to make such closed box systems popular. The better approach for the open source community is to actually publicly boycott and disparage the M1, so that Apple is forced to open up the M1. Porting Linux to it then would not only be easier, but also makes more sense. What is "uninformed" about this way of thinking? Fourth, while I do appreciate the strides made by Apple in developing their own custom ARM processors, I do genuinely believe that the technical gains (more computing power) are competitively temporary - both AMD and Intel systems have at some point always shown such leads. And it is not far fetched to say that this technical lead is even negated due to it's closed box nature. Do you think I am wrong in concluding that AMD / Intel will not catch up, or even overtake, Apple ARM processors?

scrollaway 5y ago
> What is uninformed about this, in your opinion? Nothing, that's not the part I (personally) had a problem with. > Is it "uninformed" to point out that the M1 is a closed system that limits us, compared to Intel / AMD alternatives available? Or that the efforts of the developers will be a waste when Apple can, at any time, thwart or derail such reverse engineering attempts on the M1 by updating its firmware? You just described reverse engineering. That's what it always looks like. It's not in Apple's best interest to thwart those efforts, and if they do, it becomes a game of whack-a-mole. What I believe is uninformed about your posts, or at least your arguments, is the lack of understanding of both how we got to this point, and how progress can happen. We are not at a point in the world where open hardware is winning. Not just CPUs, just open hardware in general. This won't change by ignoring the progress in closed systems. Reverse engineering for compatibility makes the progress more public and more accessible to the open systems. There are fundamental issues that need to be addressed before we can start on relying on open-by-default progress in hardware. To answer your question about what is "uninformed" about it: Maybe a better world would be pointlessly idealistic. You won't address the issues above with a boycott, and it doesn't matter because a boycott won't happen anyway (if you can't convince a die-hard supporter of open source like me, you won't convince the general public). So it's all a bit of a waste of time; I like progress to not just be theoretical. Reverse engineering for compatibility is a practical way of progressing. > Do you think I am wrong in concluding that AMD / Intel will not catch up, or even overtake, Apple ARM processors? I think it's a good bet, but I don't think any of us can say so with certainty and definitely not "when" it will happen. Intel has been spiraling lately, who knows if they will catch up at all?
cestith 5y ago
AMD and Intel are far from open hardware. ARM is not open hardware. Sure, they're better documented and therefore somewhat more open in some sense. You can't just go have a fab build you an AMD64 core or twelve and throw the chip on a custom board and sell your own laptop. You can't just get a small batch of royalty-free ARM cores and make your own phone. Did you know there's still work going on to reverse engineer the Raspberry Pi systems because Broadcom doesn't release full docs?

scrollaway 5y ago

> What is uninformed about this, in your opinion? Nothing, that's not the part I (personally) had a problem with. > Is it "uninformed" to point out that the M1 is a closed system that limits us, compared to Intel / AMD alternatives available? Or that the efforts of the developers will be a waste when Apple can, at any time, thwart or derail such reverse engineering attempts on the M1 by updating its firmware? You just described reverse engineering. That's what it always looks like. It's not in Apple's best interest to thwart those efforts, and if they do, it becomes a game of whack-a-mole. What I believe is uninformed about your posts, or at least your arguments, is the lack of understanding of both how we got to this point, and how progress can happen. We are not at a point in the world where open hardware is winning. Not just CPUs, just open hardware in general. This won't change by ignoring the progress in closed systems. Reverse engineering for compatibility makes the progress more public and more accessible to the open systems. There are fundamental issues that need to be addressed before we can start on relying on open-by-default progress in hardware. To answer your question about what is "uninformed" about it: Maybe a better world would be pointlessly idealistic. You won't address the issues above with a boycott, and it doesn't matter because a boycott won't happen anyway (if you can't convince a die-hard supporter of open source like me, you won't convince the general public). So it's all a bit of a waste of time; I like progress to not just be theoretical. Reverse engineering for compatibility is a practical way of progressing. > Do you think I am wrong in concluding that AMD / Intel will not catch up, or even overtake, Apple ARM processors? I think it's a good bet, but I don't think any of us can say so with certainty and definitely not "when" it will happen. Intel has been spiraling lately, who knows if they will catch up at all?

cestith 5y ago

AMD and Intel are far from open hardware. ARM is not open hardware. Sure, they're better documented and therefore somewhat more open in some sense. You can't just go have a fab build you an AMD64 core or twelve and throw the chip on a custom board and sell your own laptop. You can't just get a small batch of royalty-free ARM cores and make your own phone. Did you know there's still work going on to reverse engineer the Raspberry Pi systems because Broadcom doesn't release full docs?