4 ms·
Lol on animosity - now a days merely stating facts implies animosity. Also, another way to think about it is that there's zero possibility that anyone at Apple
by blinkingled 4y ago
Lol on animosity - now a days merely stating facts implies animosity. Also, another way to think about it is that there's zero possibility that anyone at Apple is spending any time working to make hardware designs that are friendly to alternative OSes. Those are both effectively the same things.
Also since you might have take this personally - I wanted to clarify that my comment mostly is a reflection of wasted potential for the M* hardware - making it friendly to alt OSes would vastly improve the hardware's utility without hurting Apple. (If you are to believe most HNers they are a H/W company that is not interested in selling your personal data - so it should be in their financial interest if alt OSes sell more of their hardware.)
- quesera 4y ago> Those are both effectively the same things. They are not even close to the same thing. And if you were more familiar with the Asahi Linux project, you might remember that Apple has done a thing or two that made their work possible/future-proof.
- blinkingled 4y agoThey are the same thing. Unless Apple commits to documenting the hardware, designing with backwards compat(lol not gonna happen - but an example), or starts committing code to Asahi Linux - rest of it is all wishy washy - a variation of no guarantees anything will work or continue to work, you are on your own. It doesn't really matter otherwise if they are or are not spending time actively breaking things - as the article shows the net effect is the same.
- quesera 4y agoThey are not at all the same thing. Absence of beneficence is not evidence of malevolence. Apple is busy making their custom OS work on their custom chips. They will change either or both, as needed, to serve their needs. It's no minor thing to ask Apple to limit their own flexibility for a tiny non-revenue-generating external project. Remember Apple does not sell Mx chips on the open market like Intel/AMD/some ARM mfrs. They do not publish hardware specs as a service to customers, because they have no customers.
- dragonwriter 4y ago> Absence of beneficence is not evidence of malevolence. Except it absolutely is evidence of malevolence. It's not conclusive evidence (i.e., irrefutable proof), but almost nothing has conclusive evidence.
- pmarreck 4y agoThis is ridiculous reasoning (which is also being trounced by quesera), and you should just take the L at this point. Helping Asahi would tangentially benefit Apple (such as increasing mac sales... something that is reasonable to assume might happen a little bit, given how much more efficient the M chips are to Intel, and the fact that most Linux stuff already compiles just fine on it) while also possibly garnering some goodwill. It'd be great if they sold or licensed the chip to others so that it would have to be documented publicly, but we're not there yet.
- AshamedCaptain 4y agoThe thing is, we're moving from CPUs that at least had their external behaviors and interfaces documented to CPUs which are _not_. Apple has already missed plenty of opportunities to generate goodwill or even minimal assurances of interoperability, and the argument that "at least it's not as locked down as the iPhone" (where this would be outright impossible instead of just ridiculously complicated) is hardly reassuring.