3 ms·

> I don't entirely understand Apple's approach here. They've just decided they don't want to be in the business of supporting Linux on Apple hardware. Short o

by jmull 4y ago

> I don't entirely understand Apple's approach here. They've just decided they don't want to be in the business of supporting Linux on Apple hardware. Short of fully supporting Linux, the "Whoops! Have fun!" part would happen somewhere, no matter where the line was drawn. Of course they could do more. But you and I shouldn't really expect to be able to tell Apple how to spend their money.

Wowfunhappy 4y ago
> You and I shouldn't really expect to be able to tell Apple how to spend their money. I don't, I just think Apple chose to draw the line in a perplexing location. I'd love to know what they were thinking.
- IntelMiner 4y ago
  Pure speculation on my part Perhaps it was "targeted" for some internal skunkworks project to get Windows running on ARM Macs? Linux/BSD obviously got there first (at least in the open) and Microsoft is under a Qualcomm only contract for now Microsoft can't directly request that Apple allow booting their OS, or work with them directly. But "leaving a spare key under the doormat" is a bit more innocent looking
  - kmeisthax 4y ago
    Almost certainly. I remember hearing Apple saying that they asked for Windows on ARM and were told no. That being said, ARM hardware is nowhere close to being cross-vendor interoperable[0] and going from Qualcomm to Apple Silicon would require a significant reverse-engineering effort on Microsoft's part. The "spare key under the doormat" is running Windows on ARM in a VM under macOS. [0] Hell, most vendors don't even bother with generational interoperability. Each chip is it's own island. Apple Silicon is a very unique exception.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
kitsunesoba 4y ago
I think it's precisely this. Even just providing specs or engineering time can be seen as "support" on some level and Apple doesn't want any responsibility whatsoever associated with that. They're avoiding external dependency at all costs.

by jmull 4y ago

Wowfunhappy 4y ago

> You and I shouldn't really expect to be able to tell Apple how to spend their money. I don't, I just think Apple chose to draw the line in a perplexing location. I'd love to know what they were thinking.

IntelMiner 4y ago
Pure speculation on my part Perhaps it was "targeted" for some internal skunkworks project to get Windows running on ARM Macs? Linux/BSD obviously got there first (at least in the open) and Microsoft is under a Qualcomm only contract for now Microsoft can't directly request that Apple allow booting their OS, or work with them directly. But "leaving a spare key under the doormat" is a bit more innocent looking
- kmeisthax 4y ago
  Almost certainly. I remember hearing Apple saying that they asked for Windows on ARM and were told no. That being said, ARM hardware is nowhere close to being cross-vendor interoperable[0] and going from Qualcomm to Apple Silicon would require a significant reverse-engineering effort on Microsoft's part. The "spare key under the doormat" is running Windows on ARM in a VM under macOS. [0] Hell, most vendors don't even bother with generational interoperability. Each chip is it's own island. Apple Silicon is a very unique exception.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

kitsunesoba 4y ago

I think it's precisely this. Even just providing specs or engineering time can be seen as "support" on some level and Apple doesn't want any responsibility whatsoever associated with that. They're avoiding external dependency at all costs.