4 ms·

I remember the 'bad old days' in the 90ies when all the big companies had their own chips. SGI Mips, DEC Alpha, HPUX on PA-RISC, Sun SPARC, etc... I really hop

by davidw 4y ago

I remember the 'bad old days' in the 90ies when all the big companies had their own chips. SGI Mips, DEC Alpha, HPUX on PA-RISC, Sun SPARC, etc... I really hope we don't go back to that. Especially with a company that defaults to 'proprietary' for so many things like Apple.

treve 4y ago
Is anyone else besides Apple doing this?
- quux 4y ago
  The nearest thing I can think of in the modern world is game consoles and smartphones. Except they are locked down much much more than an M1 Mac.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - _kbh_ 4y ago
    Those are mostly AMD SoCs with relatively mainstream x86 cores and AMD discrete graphics cards with some changes on the same die. The most exotic thing about them is usually the unified memory controller.
  - palata 4y ago
    Non-Apple smartphones mostly run Android, with a GPLv2 Linux kernel. I guess this already is more open than Apple, because OEMs need to open source their downstream kernel.
    - dagmx 4y ago
      I don’t think it really makes that big a difference. Apple already open sources their kernel. The issue is mostly device drivers, which even on Android tend to be external binary blobs. It kind of leaves you in the same place in my opinion
      - palata 4y ago
        I think it does make a difference: there are tons of Android ROMs (or even Linux distros like PostmarketOS) that run on many different Android smartphones. But I don't see the equivalent for iPhones. Isn't that because iPhones are more closed somehow? Maybe there is another reason, I don't know to be honest.
        dagmx 4y ago
        That’s down to different reasons: 1. You can still reuse the binary blobs that make up the drivers. 2. Android has unlockable bootloaders whereas iPhones do not. However the binary blobs are not always legally redistributable or even reusable. They don’t also help if you need to support any version of the kernel other than what shipped in case there’s any ABI differences
        palata 4y ago
        Thanks for the insights!
- philistine 4y ago
  Microsoft is doing the same thing with their Surface tablets (https://github.com/linux-surface/linux-surface https://github.com/linux-surface/linux-surface) and no one bats an eye.
- fnord77 4y ago
  amazon graviton cpus
quux 4y ago
I could be wrong but I think a lot of the M1 support being added to linux is around what used to be called the "chipset" of the system and not the CPU itself, which is running a typical ARM64 ISA. Getting the device tree set up, initializing graphics and all the peripherals, and the boot process is where Ashai Linux has done the vast majority of their work.
- arcticbull 4y ago
  The M1 does have its own co-processors that I do not expect to ever get support, such as AMX.
  - dmitrygr 4y ago
    really? seems pretty well documented here: https://github.com/corsix/amx https://github.com/corsix/amx
userbinator 4y ago
The PC platform is also sadly moving in that direction, with only the "legacy" devices being the biggest hurdle to keep it from closing up entirely (hence the heavily vested interests in attempting to kill them off.) The fact that there's decades of binary compatibility and third-party knowledge is a threat to the control-freak models of companies like Apple, who would rather bury the past so they can reinvent it, and charge us more for the same things we once had, in a never-ending cycle of consumerism and misinformation. Unfortunately, until people value freedom more than pure performance, efficiency, or "security", closed ecosystems may become dominant.
- amelius 4y ago
  I think buying Apple (or similar big brands) just for the hardware is shortsighted, as you're still voting with your wallet.
pipeline_peak 4y ago
We’re not heading back there. Those were all workstation grade architectures, never meant for consumers. You’re not going to see Samsung, Asus, and Dell releasing their own properietsry arm derivatives, if that’s what you’re implying. Too many laptops, too much porting and unoptimized Software. Apple’s always done this to maintain a prestigious image for non technical people.
dagmx 4y ago
The core CPU isn’t really the biggest issue. It’s the drivers for all the extra stuff: networking interfaces, displays, input handling etc… Also of course, the GPU which already has incredibly high variance across vendors.

by davidw 4y ago

treve 4y ago

Is anyone else besides Apple doing this?

quux 4y ago
The nearest thing I can think of in the modern world is game consoles and smartphones. Except they are locked down much much more than an M1 Mac.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- _kbh_ 4y ago
  Those are mostly AMD SoCs with relatively mainstream x86 cores and AMD discrete graphics cards with some changes on the same die. The most exotic thing about them is usually the unified memory controller.
- palata 4y ago
  Non-Apple smartphones mostly run Android, with a GPLv2 Linux kernel. I guess this already is more open than Apple, because OEMs need to open source their downstream kernel.
  - dagmx 4y ago
    I don’t think it really makes that big a difference. Apple already open sources their kernel. The issue is mostly device drivers, which even on Android tend to be external binary blobs. It kind of leaves you in the same place in my opinion
    - palata 4y ago
      I think it does make a difference: there are tons of Android ROMs (or even Linux distros like PostmarketOS) that run on many different Android smartphones. But I don't see the equivalent for iPhones. Isn't that because iPhones are more closed somehow? Maybe there is another reason, I don't know to be honest.
      - dagmx 4y ago
        That’s down to different reasons: 1. You can still reuse the binary blobs that make up the drivers. 2. Android has unlockable bootloaders whereas iPhones do not. However the binary blobs are not always legally redistributable or even reusable. They don’t also help if you need to support any version of the kernel other than what shipped in case there’s any ABI differences
        palata 4y ago
        Thanks for the insights!
philistine 4y ago
Microsoft is doing the same thing with their Surface tablets (https://github.com/linux-surface/linux-surface https://github.com/linux-surface/linux-surface) and no one bats an eye.
fnord77 4y ago
amazon graviton cpus

quux 4y ago

I could be wrong but I think a lot of the M1 support being added to linux is around what used to be called the "chipset" of the system and not the CPU itself, which is running a typical ARM64 ISA. Getting the device tree set up, initializing graphics and all the peripherals, and the boot process is where Ashai Linux has done the vast majority of their work.

arcticbull 4y ago
The M1 does have its own co-processors that I do not expect to ever get support, such as AMX.
- dmitrygr 4y ago
  really? seems pretty well documented here: https://github.com/corsix/amx https://github.com/corsix/amx

userbinator 4y ago

The PC platform is also sadly moving in that direction, with only the "legacy" devices being the biggest hurdle to keep it from closing up entirely (hence the heavily vested interests in attempting to kill them off.) The fact that there's decades of binary compatibility and third-party knowledge is a threat to the control-freak models of companies like Apple, who would rather bury the past so they can reinvent it, and charge us more for the same things we once had, in a never-ending cycle of consumerism and misinformation. Unfortunately, until people value freedom more than pure performance, efficiency, or "security", closed ecosystems may become dominant.

amelius 4y ago
I think buying Apple (or similar big brands) just for the hardware is shortsighted, as you're still voting with your wallet.

pipeline_peak 4y ago

We’re not heading back there. Those were all workstation grade architectures, never meant for consumers. You’re not going to see Samsung, Asus, and Dell releasing their own properietsry arm derivatives, if that’s what you’re implying. Too many laptops, too much porting and unoptimized Software. Apple’s always done this to maintain a prestigious image for non technical people.

dagmx 4y ago

The core CPU isn’t really the biggest issue. It’s the drivers for all the extra stuff: networking interfaces, displays, input handling etc… Also of course, the GPU which already has incredibly high variance across vendors.