7 ms·

> Now we can run Xonotic at over 800 FPS, which is faster than macOS on the same hardware (M2 MacBook Air) at around 600*! This proves that open source reverse

• mouse_ 4y ago
  Now that we can see Vulkan is around 4/3 more power efficient than Metal on the same hardware, I wonder if Apple will budge on their not-invented-here syndrome and allow for a real vulkan.kext on upcoming macOS versions. That would solidify it as not only the best graphical workstation OS, but also the best gaming OS, in my opinion. Part of me thinks they're avoiding this in worry of stepping on Microsoft's toes.
  • babypuncher 4y ago
    Native Vulkan support could also pave the way for a proper Mac version of DXVK. That could make Macs a lot more viable as gaming machines than they are now, even with the Rosetta 2 overhead.
    • pxc 4y ago
      As much as I like the idea of Linux being in a special position w/r/t emulation layers for Windows games, this makes a lot of sense to me as something that would be desirable to Valve, and might, like the Steam Deck, help bootstrap Proton+DXVK as a worthy target platform for game developers/publishers.
      • dathinab 4y ago
        Valve supports Steam Deck/Proton that much because they are afraid of being killed by windows locking itself down, it's a live line for them, but not a supper profitable business. A Steam for iOS & Android might be worth it for Valve, but for Mac it's like not worth the money it costs. Additionally Apple is one of the main offenders pushing for a lockdown of PC platforms and one of the main lobbyist trying to prevent regulation requiring the possibility of (well working) 3rd party app stores. Which means not only would good Mac support be costly it also is constantly at risk of "defacto" being killed off. (Yes there are currently regulations for requiring 3rd party app stores, but it being theoretical possible and it being practically viable for a business are not the same.)
        • pxc 4y ago
          I'm not sure the original proposition was that Valve focus on making that happen: > > I wonder if Apple will budge on their not-invented-here syndrome and allow for a real vulkan.kext on upcoming macOS versions > Native Vulkan support could also pave the way for a proper Mac version of DXVK I think the proposition was that if Valve lets it happen, other interested developers might be inclined to improve the situation enough that it's not so much extra work for Valve to add Mac support to Proton. I'm not sure who all would be interested, but I imagine the motivation would be similar to whatever is keeping the MoltenVK developers going. You're right that Apple provides an a hostile and precarious platform compared to Linux, of course.
  • riceart 4y ago
    > Now that we can see Vulkan is around 4/3 more power efficient than Metal on the same hardware Nonsense. They haven’t even implemented power management and it’s not even a fair comparison.
    • HopenHeyHi 4y ago
      About power management: https://www.reddit.com/r/AsahiLinux/comments/11mjhx5/tips_for_battery_drain_on_16_inch_m1_when/ https://www.reddit.com/r/AsahiLinux/comments/11mjhx5/tips_fo... Marcan (two weeks ago): It's a known issue blocked on bureaucracy/politics with the kernel, so you just have to wait. Sorry. ARM64 Linux does not want hardware-specific cpuidle drivers, instead relying on the PSCI firmware standard, but that standard is designed to rely on optional ARM features that Apple Silicon does not implement, so we can't implement it. Basically, PSCI assumes you have a "super-hypervisor" running the platform (TrustZone/EL3 on most Androids, but also somewhat similar to SMM mode on Intel), which is something Apple very deliberately stripped out of their CPUs very quickly because they don't need it and their security model relies on better solutions. Linux on AS truly runs on bare metal at the highest privilege, unlike the vast majority of other ARM64 platforms. The current thinking is we need to make a new standard, either a new PSCI transport that does work on AS or something simpler/ad-hoc. We haven't had time to start that long conversation formally yet. I could write a hardware-specific cpuidle driver in a day, but of course they'd reject it upstream. Doesn't seem like this is going to be fixed anytime soon. :(
  • CostcoFanboy 4y ago
    [dead]
  • 7e 4y ago
    Xonotic runs under Rosetta on macOS.
  • illiarian 4y ago
    > I wonder if Apple will budge on their not-invented-here syndrome and allow for a real vulkan Do you realize that Vulkan as an idea (not even as a spec) appeared 1 year after Metal was shipped? Do you realize that apart from Android there's no platform that truly supports Vulkan? > That would solidify it as not only the best graphical workstation OS, but also the best gaming OS Of course it wouldn't. Vulkan is on its way to become the next OpenGL
    • deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  • rowanG077 4y ago
    It's not using Vulkan. It's using opengl.
  • sebzim4500 4y ago
    >Part of me thinks they're avoiding this in worry of stepping on Microsoft's toes. What
  • m463 4y ago
    They just won't do it. Not that they can't, it would be nice. When they capitulated and came out with the intel macs around 2007ish, it became sort of a golden era. You could run macos and windows on their machines, and the smart computer folks started getting and usefully using macs. But now apple is years into a disappointing inward looking phase. What a decent future would be like... - vulcan/x - take back xquartz into the fold - actively pursue other linux graphics apis - apple does virtualization - maybe like rosetta but for all their software - run macos9 in a window - apple does containers - what if there was something like docker for macos natively? FROM macos:10.3 - apple actively supports open source projects - open up ios - let me see the filesystem - let me run a firewall (true privacy?) etc...
    • pxc 4y ago
      If Apple did all that, I would buy new hardware from them, and even leave their OS in place on it, for the first time in almost two decades.
    • ofchnofc 4y ago
      Not that I disagree with the spirit, X is dead, and someone demo'd Wayland apps on macOS at NixCon Paris.
    • jen20 4y ago
      The move to MacOS by development and sysadmin types started long before Intel Macs with the release of OSX, when it was finally possible to get a laptop with a 5+ hour battery life that ran a Unix-like OS. Edit: The latest macOS has a great virtualization system built in, that many of the container platforms have already switched to.
      • einherjae 4y ago
        The PowerPC machines never did reach actual 5 hour battery time, 3 at most, on a good day, with the display off.
        • jen20 4y ago
  • jmull 4y ago
    From the article: * Please don’t take the exact number too seriously, as there are other differences too (Xonotic runs under Rosetta on macOS, but it was also rendering at a lower resolution there due to being a non-Retina app).
    • frogblast 4y ago
      Not the least of which is likely power and clock state management (both on the CPU and GPU)
  • brookst 4y ago
    Vulkan is about 4/3 as power efficient when rendering at a lower resolution than Metal Is that surprising? Fewer pixels usually means faster rendering.
    • simonh 4y ago
      It’s not 4/3 as power efficient at all, that comment was based on a misreading of the stats given.
    • dathinab 4y ago
      Metal was rendering in a lower resolution, but metal the game was also running through rosetta (x86 emulation) on Mac which is fast but has some overhead. _Hence why she claims that it is in a similar performance range._ (instead of saying it's way fast, which is a result from taking sentences out of context and not fully reading the article)
    • kuschku 4y ago
      Metal was rendering at lower resolution than Vulkan here.
      • Narishma 4y ago
        OpenGL rather.
• spullara 4y ago
  I wonder if the driver could be ported to Mac OS?
  • deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  • encryptluks2 4y ago
    Maybe, but it seems bizarre that open source developers go so far to contribute to a closed source proprietary ecosystem when the manufacturer doesn't only make it difficult but they at times actually intentionally impede their work. That is a lot of time and effort of someone doing something for free that the manufacturer should be paying them to do and assist with.
    • kelnos 4y ago
      I think that's not an unreasonable point, but, well: 1. I try not to tell people what to do with their free time. While you may think it's "bizarre", this use of their time has value to them, not only in the hopeful end result (fully-functional Linux on ARM Macs), but also in the satisfaction of the technical challenge, bragging rights, and general reputation. I'm sure there are some people who might look at what you do with your spare time and think you're "wasting" it sometimes. But that's in the eye of the beholder, and at any rate, that's your prerogative, as this is theirs. 2. I used to run Linux on Mac laptops (gave up around 2016 or so, tried again in 2018, gave up again shortly after), and I get the appeal: the hardware is really nice. And by all accounts, the ARM Macs are even nicer than the Intel Macs. Sure, they're not perfect (lack of upgradeability/repairability, etc.), but running Linux on them can be great, if the hardware support is there. "I like this hardware and I want to run Linux on/with it, so I'll figure it out myself" seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to do. Many of the drivers in the Linux kernel for various bits of hardware only exist because someone adopted this attitude. I also just think your premise is a bit flawed: > open source developers go so far to contribute to a closed source proprietary ecosystem This is a little bit of a weird statement, because these developers aren't doing that. The "closed source proprietary ecosystem" is macOS and its app store. The hardware itself is more or less just as open (or closed) as most non-Apple hardware. I mean, I can't rewrite the BIOS in my Framework Laptop, nor can I make heads or tails of any of the binary firmware blobs Linux loads into the WiFi chipset, graphics chipset, etc. Apple's hardware is undocumented, certainly, but that's pretty common when it comes to Linux hardware support. > but they at times actually intentionally impede their work Do they, though? From what I've read of the Asahi project's progress, they didn't run into cases where Apple intentionally tried to make things harder on them. Sure, some things were harder, but I don't think we can ascribe a malicious motive to Apple. The most likely explanation is that they just decided to design things in a particular way because they felt it would be best for their own purposes, and didn't really care to think about anything else. They could have decided to actively cryptographically lock down the boot process to prohibit other OSes from running, but they didn't do that. > That is a lot of time and effort of someone doing something for free that the manufacturer should be paying them to do and assist with. Why "should" they? All hardware manufacturers decide what software to write, and what platforms to support. If they don't think the cost of writing and supporting drivers for Linux is worth what they'll get in return, they'll make the logical choice to just... not do that. We've seen plenty of vendors over the 30-odd-year lifetime of Linux do that math and decide Linux support wasn't worth it to them. It's a shame, but I don't think it's fair to come down on them hard for that. Certainly some vendors (nvidia comes to mind) have been actively hostile toward the Linux community at times, but I don't think we can say the same of Apple.