6 ms·

Just imagine what Apple would do to the market if they also offered a full Linux support, but not Windows... They'd probably own some 70% of Linux market outrig

by cromka 8mo ago

Just imagine what Apple would do to the market if they also offered a full Linux support, but not Windows... They'd probably own some 70% of Linux market outright and also double its overall size overnight.

beAbU 8mo ago
If apple came out with their own linux distro, with open drivers and a mainline kernel... A girl can dream!
- pjmlp 8mo ago
  This path is already taken and it didn't sell Apple hardware in masses. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MkLinux https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MkLinux
  - beAbU 8mo ago
    MkLinux was first released in 1996, and discontinued in 2002. I would argue that things have changed significantly since then.
    - yfw 8mo ago
      Yeah liquid glass suckss
- starkparker 8mo ago
  The memory that XNU and Darwin are technically open-source projects is a curse that brings one only suffering.
  - p_ing 8mo ago
    I would call them open access. Apple doesn't accept contributions.
    - bigfishrunning 8mo ago
      Does not accepting contributions make you not open source? I would assume if the license allows you to fork it, that makes it open source (as opposed to "shared source" licenses that basically say "look don't touch")
- kylec 8mo ago
  I feel like Apple wouldn't want to make full Linux work on their hardware, but they could enable their Darwin kernel to emulate Linux syscalls and provide a way to boot into a mode that basically loads the kernel and whatever Linux shell you want
pjmlp 8mo ago
Don't need to imagine, it did not take off, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MkLinux https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MkLinux > Reception was mixed, focusing on the difficult installation process and the significant performance costs of the Mach kernel. Reviewers noted its potential as a "Unix killer", but that it required users to abandon the user-friendly Macintosh experience for a pure Linux environment.
- fsflover 8mo ago
  > difficult installation process and the significant performance costs So it was a failure in implementation.
  - pjmlp 8mo ago
    And the Apple that delivered Tahoe will do better?
    - cromka 8mo ago
      All they would need is to provide complete DTBs and some drivers, no need to write a new OS from scratch.
- kingstnap 8mo ago
  1996 is not now. This comparision makes little to no sense. I'm sure if Apple provided support for installing your own OS on their M series laptops it would be incredibly popular. And I don't need to guess at this using weird 1996 research on microkernels because Asahi Linux exists and clearly there is interest in it.
  - pjmlp 8mo ago
    Indeed, Apple from 1996 would not released Tahoe, most likely. We don't need research because QNX, L4 and many others on embedded space do exist as well.
    - 8mo ago
eloisant 8mo ago
They already cannibalized a lot of Linux users, developers mainly when they released MacOS X around year 2000. Suddenly you could have a Unix, with pretty much the same CLI as Linux but without all the supported hardware/driver issues. Laptop sleep in particular was pretty finicky. If MacOS didn't pick a Unix/BSD base, I'm pretty sure all the tech companies running Mac would be on Linux.
- throw0101d 8mo ago
  > They already cannibalized a lot of Linux users, developers mainly when they released MacOS X around year 2000. FoxTrot comic from 2002: * https://archive.is/https://www.gocomics.com/foxtrot/2002/02/25 https://archive.is/https://www.gocomics.com/foxtrot/2002/02/...
- nottorp 8mo ago
  They seem to be trying hard to annoy developers lately though. <cough> xattr...
- Apocryphon 8mo ago
  BeOS, anyone?
  - znpy 8mo ago
    Clearly not
layer8 8mo ago
Apple wants to make money with services, however, and buying more devices in their ecosystem. Full Linux support would counteract the lock-in.
- cromka 8mo ago
  I thought about it , but cloud is getting way more expensive since they don't own the infrastructure, while they themselves have long term components contracts that actually help to increase their margin on their hardware. So they're most likely gonna make more money off of hardware going forward. And nothing stops them from offering integration with other devices, effectively all they lose is potential income from AppStore on macOS, which doesn't sell much anyway. The more I think about it, the more it makes sense to me!
raw_anon_1111 8mo ago
You really overestimate how many people care about Linux …
- cromka 8mo ago
  Do I? What in my comment suggests that?

by cromka 8mo ago

beAbU 8mo ago

If apple came out with their own linux distro, with open drivers and a mainline kernel... A girl can dream!

pjmlp 8mo ago
This path is already taken and it didn't sell Apple hardware in masses. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MkLinux https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MkLinux
- beAbU 8mo ago
  MkLinux was first released in 1996, and discontinued in 2002. I would argue that things have changed significantly since then.
  - yfw 8mo ago
    Yeah liquid glass suckss
starkparker 8mo ago
The memory that XNU and Darwin are technically open-source projects is a curse that brings one only suffering.
- p_ing 8mo ago
  I would call them open access. Apple doesn't accept contributions.
  - bigfishrunning 8mo ago
    Does not accepting contributions make you not open source? I would assume if the license allows you to fork it, that makes it open source (as opposed to "shared source" licenses that basically say "look don't touch")
kylec 8mo ago
I feel like Apple wouldn't want to make full Linux work on their hardware, but they could enable their Darwin kernel to emulate Linux syscalls and provide a way to boot into a mode that basically loads the kernel and whatever Linux shell you want

pjmlp 8mo ago

Don't need to imagine, it did not take off, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MkLinux https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MkLinux > Reception was mixed, focusing on the difficult installation process and the significant performance costs of the Mach kernel. Reviewers noted its potential as a "Unix killer", but that it required users to abandon the user-friendly Macintosh experience for a pure Linux environment.

fsflover 8mo ago
> difficult installation process and the significant performance costs So it was a failure in implementation.
- pjmlp 8mo ago
  And the Apple that delivered Tahoe will do better?
  - cromka 8mo ago
    All they would need is to provide complete DTBs and some drivers, no need to write a new OS from scratch.
kingstnap 8mo ago
1996 is not now. This comparision makes little to no sense. I'm sure if Apple provided support for installing your own OS on their M series laptops it would be incredibly popular. And I don't need to guess at this using weird 1996 research on microkernels because Asahi Linux exists and clearly there is interest in it.
- pjmlp 8mo ago
  Indeed, Apple from 1996 would not released Tahoe, most likely. We don't need research because QNX, L4 and many others on embedded space do exist as well.
  - 8mo ago

eloisant 8mo ago

They already cannibalized a lot of Linux users, developers mainly when they released MacOS X around year 2000. Suddenly you could have a Unix, with pretty much the same CLI as Linux but without all the supported hardware/driver issues. Laptop sleep in particular was pretty finicky. If MacOS didn't pick a Unix/BSD base, I'm pretty sure all the tech companies running Mac would be on Linux.

throw0101d 8mo ago
> They already cannibalized a lot of Linux users, developers mainly when they released MacOS X around year 2000. FoxTrot comic from 2002: * https://archive.is/https://www.gocomics.com/foxtrot/2002/02/25 https://archive.is/https://www.gocomics.com/foxtrot/2002/02/...
nottorp 8mo ago
They seem to be trying hard to annoy developers lately though. <cough> xattr...
Apocryphon 8mo ago
BeOS, anyone?
- znpy 8mo ago
  Clearly not

layer8 8mo ago

Apple wants to make money with services, however, and buying more devices in their ecosystem. Full Linux support would counteract the lock-in.

cromka 8mo ago
I thought about it , but cloud is getting way more expensive since they don't own the infrastructure, while they themselves have long term components contracts that actually help to increase their margin on their hardware. So they're most likely gonna make more money off of hardware going forward. And nothing stops them from offering integration with other devices, effectively all they lose is potential income from AppStore on macOS, which doesn't sell much anyway. The more I think about it, the more it makes sense to me!

raw_anon_1111 8mo ago

You really overestimate how many people care about Linux …

cromka 8mo ago
Do I? What in my comment suggests that?