4 ms·

We should all be grateful for the time and passion the Asahi Linux (AL) team of hackers have invested in documenting (ugh, the most boring job!) and reverse-eng

We should all be grateful for the time and passion the Asahi Linux (AL) team of hackers have invested in documenting (ugh, the most boring job!) and reverse-engineering the Apple Silicon Macs to port Linux to it. If you do plan to buy an Apple Silcon Mac M1 / M2 though, I'd suggest you rather hold off that and instead donate some money to the Asahi Linux team here - https://asahilinux.org/support/ https://asahilinux.org/support/ instead. Despite the progress made by the AL team, the simple fact remains that these Apple Mac M1/M2 platforms can only run crippled versions of other OS, and macOS still remains the only usable OS on it. More donations to the AL team can fix this faster, and not buying these Macs will also put pressure on Apple to further delay locking down these systems more and / or (one can dream!) even force them to release more hardware literature to provide bare minimum support for alternate OS development. Donating even a small sum to AL would be money well spent compared to giving your money to a trillion dollar company that isn't bothered to support system developers. Note that the opaque and closed nature of the Apple Silicon platform (unlike AMD / Intel or other ARM CPUs that support a plethora of OSes and allow their development) hugely constrain our consumer rights, right to repair and computing freedom. > Definitely worth referencing next time someone on HN or elsewhere claims Apple's trying to lock down their computers to running macOS only. I do say this often here vocally that with Apple Silicon Apple does plan to lock down the Mac platform in the future. The key point though is that it will happen only once the Apple Silicon Mac platforms reach a critical level of adoption. Technically, it is trivial now for them to lock the bootloader and completely lock down every mac with a firmware update. But commercially it is not yet a viable move for them as the backlash to such a move would generate a lot of bad PR that would hurt the sale and adoption of the ARM Macs. Apple learnt that lesson when they introduced the Mac Minis with soldered RAM and SSDs - it was the worse selling Mac Mini model, and they were forced to step back, slowdown and reintroduce another model with removable RAMs. The pattern of how Apple has been increasingly locking down the Mac platform is evident: 1. The first few Intel Mac Minis allowed you some level of customisation of both the hardware (change RAM or HDD / SSD) and software (install other full featured OS). 2. Then came the Mac Minis with soldered RAM and SSD. You could no longer customise the hardware. Software was still customisable and you could still install other OSes. (Recall that Apple even offered free drivers for another OS, i.e. Windows). 3. The current generation of M1 Mini now doesn't allow you to customise both the hardware (everything is soldered) and the software. Technically you can install other OSes, but the reality is that currently only crippled versions of Linux and xBSD is available and practically the only full-featured OS that can run on it is still macOS. With the Apple Silicon ARM chips in the Mac, Apple is now only ONE step away from locking the bootloaders of Apple Silicon Macs any time to make it a completely closed platform like the iPhones / iPads. It has been evident that Apple has been planning this for years. It's the old - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog - trick to lull its users into not realising how their rights are slowly being encroached, while Apple marketing comes up with new ways to sell you the idea that locking down the system is for your own good. These are very clear indicators of how Apple has been working slowly to lockdown the Mac platform like their ios platforms. The reason for this is simple - BigTech are increasingly moving towards selling everything as a service. Services - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32269915 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32269915 - are more profitable because it means they create recurring income (even after the device is sold) which means more profits. And Apple's successful business model for this, that earns them billions of dollars, is the closed-platform modelof the iPhones / iPads (which ofcourse, are also powered by the same Apple Silicon but with locked bootloaders). Such closed system also help in planned obsolescence that increase sale.

macintux 4y ago
One problem with this argument is that you can never be proven wrong. 20 years from now if the platform is still open, there will still be ample evidence that, as Apple tries to maintain security, instead they’re actually preparing to close the platform. I think if they were going to lock it down, the ARM transition was the perfect opportunity. Half the computing world expected it anyway, and the number of people who care is far fewer than those who just want a robust computer. But I can effectively never be proven correct.
- webmobdev 4y ago
  I've provided an example of how Apple has been locking down the Mac Minis over the years to outright prevent us from customising the hardware, to now crippling our ability to run the system softwares that we want. You can definitely claim that these are measures that Apple has taken to harden the "security" of the Macs - a hardware that cannot be modified and system software that cannot be easily replaced does add to a device's security. But from that perspective, an open bootloader is clearly a security threat too. When Apple locks the bootloaders on the Mac tomorrow, and claims it is to make the device more "secure" it would be true! But then, why stop there - now that the system software is "secure" from tampering, why not also extend this "security" to other softwares that will be run on the Mac? The "secure" solution is obvious - allow the softwares to be only be installed from the Apple App Store. Now the Mac is as "secure" as your iPhones and iPads! Are you claiming this won't happen - that Macs will never be locked down machines like the iDevices? What indications have Apple given that suggests this? (Remember, they have already taken away our ability to customise or repair the hardware, and crippled our ability to run the software we want on it). > I think if they were going to lock it down, the ARM transition was the perfect opportunity. No, the amount of bad PR it would have generated would have tarnished the Apple Silicon branding, and all the polarised debates and the negativity it would have generated would have taken away focus from the good features of the SoC. It would definitely have reduced the sales of the M1 Mac devices, and that would have made the shareholders jittery too. Let's not forget that Apple (and others) who want to push such locked down systems in the personal and professional computing field face an uphill task to change consumer behaviour - we consumers are used to, and expect to be allowed to tinker with our hardware and software. Apple (and others) obviously cannot change that expectation overnight, and hence the slow phased approach of eroding our consumer rights and computing freedom is the only way to achieve their goal.

macintux 4y ago

One problem with this argument is that you can never be proven wrong. 20 years from now if the platform is still open, there will still be ample evidence that, as Apple tries to maintain security, instead they’re actually preparing to close the platform. I think if they were going to lock it down, the ARM transition was the perfect opportunity. Half the computing world expected it anyway, and the number of people who care is far fewer than those who just want a robust computer. But I can effectively never be proven correct.

webmobdev 4y ago
I've provided an example of how Apple has been locking down the Mac Minis over the years to outright prevent us from customising the hardware, to now crippling our ability to run the system softwares that we want. You can definitely claim that these are measures that Apple has taken to harden the "security" of the Macs - a hardware that cannot be modified and system software that cannot be easily replaced does add to a device's security. But from that perspective, an open bootloader is clearly a security threat too. When Apple locks the bootloaders on the Mac tomorrow, and claims it is to make the device more "secure" it would be true! But then, why stop there - now that the system software is "secure" from tampering, why not also extend this "security" to other softwares that will be run on the Mac? The "secure" solution is obvious - allow the softwares to be only be installed from the Apple App Store. Now the Mac is as "secure" as your iPhones and iPads! Are you claiming this won't happen - that Macs will never be locked down machines like the iDevices? What indications have Apple given that suggests this? (Remember, they have already taken away our ability to customise or repair the hardware, and crippled our ability to run the software we want on it). > I think if they were going to lock it down, the ARM transition was the perfect opportunity. No, the amount of bad PR it would have generated would have tarnished the Apple Silicon branding, and all the polarised debates and the negativity it would have generated would have taken away focus from the good features of the SoC. It would definitely have reduced the sales of the M1 Mac devices, and that would have made the shareholders jittery too. Let's not forget that Apple (and others) who want to push such locked down systems in the personal and professional computing field face an uphill task to change consumer behaviour - we consumers are used to, and expect to be allowed to tinker with our hardware and software. Apple (and others) obviously cannot change that expectation overnight, and hence the slow phased approach of eroding our consumer rights and computing freedom is the only way to achieve their goal.