4 ms·

> Hoping the next gen of x86 chips finally hit that sweet spot of performance/low power/heat. Well I'm hoping we're finally getting the shove to move off x86,

> Hoping the next gen of x86 chips finally hit that sweet spot of performance/low power/heat. Well I'm hoping we're finally getting the shove to move off x86, there's nothing particularly exciting about the architecture itself, and we're finally getting a tangible proof that the compatibility layer has a huge price tag. I'm excited because displacing x86 is also a stepping stone for RISC-V, and might push various vendors to consider making their software more portable - which would be a win for literally everyone. > [...] the walled garden and the Appstore lockdown to protect their cash cow are coming at the expense of functionality [...] Emphasis mine - what is the functionality trade-off that you're referring to? The App Store has never stopped me from running any app from outside the App Store. I would agree that macOS is continuously getting a bit less hackable over time (how do you authorise cron to access the downloads folder...), but this has very clearly everything to do with the half-assed attempts at making the system more secure (a very noble and respectable goal), and nothing to do with restricting user freedom (after you factor in incompetence, carelessness, and ignorance). OpenBSD has always been making broadly similar moves: securelevel, signing packages, pledge/unveil, removing support for loadable kernel modules, removing unmaintained/insecure subsystems (Linux emulation, Bluetooth). Some of these have been a bit annoying, but reading this as removing user freedom seems like mis-interpreting the intent.

smoldesu 4y ago
> Well I'm hoping we're finally getting the shove to move off x86, there's nothing particularly exciting about the architecture itself... I actually largely agree with you here. We need to be transitioning to open ISAs, so getting off x86 isn't something I disagree with. However, jumping from one proprietary ISA to another, slower one doesn't exactly make sense to me. No matter how you frame it, x86 is still the performance and compatibility king. I'd love a RISC-V laptop as much as the next guy, I think this is more about Apple increasing their profit margins by re-using their ISA licensing from their phones/tablets. > Emphasis mine - what is the functionality trade-off that you're referring to? The App Store has never stopped me from running any app from outside the App Store. Well, the discussion is the Apple ecosystem, not just Mac, and in that sense the App Store does prevent you from ingesting third-party software or running arbitrary code on your own device. I also don't think this is about security as much as it's about control. Apple now directly competes with companies like Spotify, Netflix, Hulu, Microsoft, Meta, the list goes on for days. If they control their hardware and software experience end-to-end, then they control the users too. > ...and nothing to do with restricting user freedom But how exactly can we prove that? Apple says one thing and does another. They say they're protecting user privacy by hashing your cloud photos with a neural network. They say they've built the fastest GPU and then backpedal when it gets benchmarked. If they give you less capabilities with each update and say it's making you safer, I don't think I'd take their word entirely at face value; maybe security is part of the motivation, but almost certainly not the entire story. As for OpenBSD? I actually like their approach for the most part, but there's a reason it's still a fairly niche OS. People like having options, and taking away your Linuxulator and Bluetooth modules doesn't make for a super enticing desktop experience. MacOS suffers the same issue, but more for the development crowd. There are so many footguns in MacOS for developing standard *NIX software that it makes my head spin. Want the standard GNU coreutils? Of course they're not built in, go grab a package manager and download them posthaste! Want to use Git? Here, download 750mb of random utilities onto your system so the 20mb program can execute. Oh, you wanted Bash to be up-to-date? We sorta forgot about that one... ...but their MacOS, iPad and iPhone development tools get fixed just fine. Gotta tend to the breadwinners before you take care of the intrinsic issues in your OS, I guess. In closing, I don't actually disagree with a lot of your rhetoric, but I don't think you're addressing the parent's statement. Apple is flighty, they do crazy things in the blink of an eye and everyone else is forced to just go along. What happens if I go back to the Apple ecosystem and they remove all the iPhone and Macbook ports? There could be so many "gotchas" that many people simply don't feel safe going back to that lifestyle anymore. There is no roadmap, and that scares people who rely on stable software for a living. It's why I end up developing more on Linux than I do on Mac.
- rollcat 4y ago
  > No matter how you frame it, x86 is still the performance and compatibility king. I'm not up to date with the latest benchmarks, but last time I checked, the M1 family is near the top in raw performance, and completely destroying everything else in perf per watt (CPU and GPU) - at competitive prices. The compatibility angle is pretty interesting. I've been using an M1 Mac for about a year, and the only time I notice that I'm not on an x86 system, is when I run Electron apps compiled for x86 only. (I think it shows just how bad of an idea it is to ship JIT kitchen sinks as "native" apps, but it's an entirely different topic.) Surprisingly enough, the ARM build of Windows 11 in Parallels also does a pretty good job of running x86 software, including even some pretty dated games (like Soldat). GPU works really well too - Edge in Parallels beats native Safari on shadertoy.com. Of course I'd rather see software that is actually portable and built natively, but honestly, I'm just impressed with what these companies have pulled. > I think this is more about Apple increasing their profit margins by re-using their ISA licensing from their phones/tablets. I don't mind Apple increasing their profit margins, if other parties benefit as well. Consider the impact on the wider software ecosystem. Software is usually difficult to port to a second platform, because the developer was hardcoding some assumptions. Often porting to a secondary architecture, OS, or platform will lay the groundwork to remove many of these assumptions, and enable porting to other systems. Portability tends to contribute to software quality, and having more software available benefits the users of the secondary platforms. As I said: everyone wins. > [...] in that sense the App Store does prevent you from ingesting third-party software or running arbitrary code on your own device. This is technically incorrect. You don't need the App Store to run arbitrary code on your iPad/iPhone - you only need a Mac and XCode. Which is either better or worse, depending on your POV. And again - you can now write iPad apps on an iPad. You still need to jump all the hoops to distribute it on the App Store, but if you consider the work it takes to e.g. have it included in Debian repositories, or OpenBSD ports, it's roughly equivalent. "You can bring your toys to my playground, but we still play by my rules." > They say they're protecting user privacy by hashing your cloud photos with a neural network. I 100% agree with you on this one. The premise looks innocent: iCloud Photos is opt-in, and Apple is doing Apple by moving their CPU-bound workloads away from clouds and onto user devices. Technically this is fine: nothing is being scanned that wasn't already being scanned server-side. But just having the mechanism at all is scary, it has a lot of potential to bring harm, and it's a very dangerous precedent. > If they give you less capabilities with each update and say it's making you safer, I don't think I'd take their word entirely at face value [...] I'm not taking that at face value, but I will blame their "honest" incompetence, carelessness, and ignorance before I will accuse them of malice. They often rewrite stuff for the sake of rewriting it, and break "edge" cases that thousands of people rely on. The cries the the thousands drown in a billion sales though. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=site%3Ajwz.org+fucking+apple https://duckduckgo.com/?q=site%3Ajwz.org+fucking+apple > Want the standard GNU coreutils? Of course they're not built in, go grab a package manager and download them posthaste! Same on every BSD. macOS is just staying true to its roots ;) > Oh, you wanted Bash to be up-to-date? Notice that macOS' Bash is the final GPL-2 release. This is entirely on FSF working overtime to make redistributing their software more annoying. One of the reasons why I'm a big fan of the BSDs, is that they take this no-bullshit approach to redistribution: the license has to answer one simple question, "can I use this?", preferably in a few very short sentences. Personally, I'd stay away from Bash. If an otherwise POSIXly kosher shell script becomes hairy enough to call for Bash's extensions, I will label it a monster and rewrite it in Python. ZSH and (OpenBSD) KSH both make much nicer interactive shells too. > Apple is flighty, they do crazy things in the blink of an eye and everyone else is forced to just go along. Agree on that. "Our playground, our rules", often taken to an extreme. Which is also why I like voting with my wallet, and keeping an alternative around (OpenBSD on my laptop). If I don't like an Apple toy, I simply don't buy it. > It's why I end up developing more on Linux than I do on Mac. Which explains why you're having such a hard time with systems that don't include the non-standard GNU or Linux extensions. I develop and/or test across five different OS+arch combinations, which often catches bugs and hardcoded assumptions. I often wonder if it's worth it, but then remember how monocultures tend to just rot.

smoldesu 4y ago

> Well I'm hoping we're finally getting the shove to move off x86, there's nothing particularly exciting about the architecture itself... I actually largely agree with you here. We need to be transitioning to open ISAs, so getting off x86 isn't something I disagree with. However, jumping from one proprietary ISA to another, slower one doesn't exactly make sense to me. No matter how you frame it, x86 is still the performance and compatibility king. I'd love a RISC-V laptop as much as the next guy, I think this is more about Apple increasing their profit margins by re-using their ISA licensing from their phones/tablets. > Emphasis mine - what is the functionality trade-off that you're referring to? The App Store has never stopped me from running any app from outside the App Store. Well, the discussion is the Apple ecosystem, not just Mac, and in that sense the App Store does prevent you from ingesting third-party software or running arbitrary code on your own device. I also don't think this is about security as much as it's about control. Apple now directly competes with companies like Spotify, Netflix, Hulu, Microsoft, Meta, the list goes on for days. If they control their hardware and software experience end-to-end, then they control the users too. > ...and nothing to do with restricting user freedom But how exactly can we prove that? Apple says one thing and does another. They say they're protecting user privacy by hashing your cloud photos with a neural network. They say they've built the fastest GPU and then backpedal when it gets benchmarked. If they give you less capabilities with each update and say it's making you safer, I don't think I'd take their word entirely at face value; maybe security is part of the motivation, but almost certainly not the entire story. As for OpenBSD? I actually like their approach for the most part, but there's a reason it's still a fairly niche OS. People like having options, and taking away your Linuxulator and Bluetooth modules doesn't make for a super enticing desktop experience. MacOS suffers the same issue, but more for the development crowd. There are so many footguns in MacOS for developing standard *NIX software that it makes my head spin. Want the standard GNU coreutils? Of course they're not built in, go grab a package manager and download them posthaste! Want to use Git? Here, download 750mb of random utilities onto your system so the 20mb program can execute. Oh, you wanted Bash to be up-to-date? We sorta forgot about that one... ...but their MacOS, iPad and iPhone development tools get fixed just fine. Gotta tend to the breadwinners before you take care of the intrinsic issues in your OS, I guess. In closing, I don't actually disagree with a lot of your rhetoric, but I don't think you're addressing the parent's statement. Apple is flighty, they do crazy things in the blink of an eye and everyone else is forced to just go along. What happens if I go back to the Apple ecosystem and they remove all the iPhone and Macbook ports? There could be so many "gotchas" that many people simply don't feel safe going back to that lifestyle anymore. There is no roadmap, and that scares people who rely on stable software for a living. It's why I end up developing more on Linux than I do on Mac.

rollcat 4y ago
> No matter how you frame it, x86 is still the performance and compatibility king. I'm not up to date with the latest benchmarks, but last time I checked, the M1 family is near the top in raw performance, and completely destroying everything else in perf per watt (CPU and GPU) - at competitive prices. The compatibility angle is pretty interesting. I've been using an M1 Mac for about a year, and the only time I notice that I'm not on an x86 system, is when I run Electron apps compiled for x86 only. (I think it shows just how bad of an idea it is to ship JIT kitchen sinks as "native" apps, but it's an entirely different topic.) Surprisingly enough, the ARM build of Windows 11 in Parallels also does a pretty good job of running x86 software, including even some pretty dated games (like Soldat). GPU works really well too - Edge in Parallels beats native Safari on shadertoy.com. Of course I'd rather see software that is actually portable and built natively, but honestly, I'm just impressed with what these companies have pulled. > I think this is more about Apple increasing their profit margins by re-using their ISA licensing from their phones/tablets. I don't mind Apple increasing their profit margins, if other parties benefit as well. Consider the impact on the wider software ecosystem. Software is usually difficult to port to a second platform, because the developer was hardcoding some assumptions. Often porting to a secondary architecture, OS, or platform will lay the groundwork to remove many of these assumptions, and enable porting to other systems. Portability tends to contribute to software quality, and having more software available benefits the users of the secondary platforms. As I said: everyone wins. > [...] in that sense the App Store does prevent you from ingesting third-party software or running arbitrary code on your own device. This is technically incorrect. You don't need the App Store to run arbitrary code on your iPad/iPhone - you only need a Mac and XCode. Which is either better or worse, depending on your POV. And again - you can now write iPad apps on an iPad. You still need to jump all the hoops to distribute it on the App Store, but if you consider the work it takes to e.g. have it included in Debian repositories, or OpenBSD ports, it's roughly equivalent. "You can bring your toys to my playground, but we still play by my rules." > They say they're protecting user privacy by hashing your cloud photos with a neural network. I 100% agree with you on this one. The premise looks innocent: iCloud Photos is opt-in, and Apple is doing Apple by moving their CPU-bound workloads away from clouds and onto user devices. Technically this is fine: nothing is being scanned that wasn't already being scanned server-side. But just having the mechanism at all is scary, it has a lot of potential to bring harm, and it's a very dangerous precedent. > If they give you less capabilities with each update and say it's making you safer, I don't think I'd take their word entirely at face value [...] I'm not taking that at face value, but I will blame their "honest" incompetence, carelessness, and ignorance before I will accuse them of malice. They often rewrite stuff for the sake of rewriting it, and break "edge" cases that thousands of people rely on. The cries the the thousands drown in a billion sales though. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=site%3Ajwz.org+fucking+apple https://duckduckgo.com/?q=site%3Ajwz.org+fucking+apple > Want the standard GNU coreutils? Of course they're not built in, go grab a package manager and download them posthaste! Same on every BSD. macOS is just staying true to its roots ;) > Oh, you wanted Bash to be up-to-date? Notice that macOS' Bash is the final GPL-2 release. This is entirely on FSF working overtime to make redistributing their software more annoying. One of the reasons why I'm a big fan of the BSDs, is that they take this no-bullshit approach to redistribution: the license has to answer one simple question, "can I use this?", preferably in a few very short sentences. Personally, I'd stay away from Bash. If an otherwise POSIXly kosher shell script becomes hairy enough to call for Bash's extensions, I will label it a monster and rewrite it in Python. ZSH and (OpenBSD) KSH both make much nicer interactive shells too. > Apple is flighty, they do crazy things in the blink of an eye and everyone else is forced to just go along. Agree on that. "Our playground, our rules", often taken to an extreme. Which is also why I like voting with my wallet, and keeping an alternative around (OpenBSD on my laptop). If I don't like an Apple toy, I simply don't buy it. > It's why I end up developing more on Linux than I do on Mac. Which explains why you're having such a hard time with systems that don't include the non-standard GNU or Linux extensions. I develop and/or test across five different OS+arch combinations, which often catches bugs and hardcoded assumptions. I often wonder if it's worth it, but then remember how monocultures tend to just rot.