Show HN: Turbo Boost Disable for macOS

aaronharnly wrote: post #2

Looks neat! Shouldn't there be a better way to get the required permissions than asking the user to put their login password in a plaintext file?

There's likely a way to get root without having to read the password each time, this is just what I managed to hack together. If anyone has any ideas/suggestions I would be happy to fix this ASAP!

Re: Show HN: Turbo Boost Disable for macOS

#5

Post by aequitas » Tue, Feb 11, 2020, 11:07 AM UTC

I know it's not protocol to talk down Show HN submissions. But this is just a shell script loading a core component of TBS [0] during login without password prompts: by saving your password in a plain text file.

I can agree that password prompts at login are not the best user experience but security is there for a reason.

Maybe TBS should implement this using the privileged helper pattern [1] which allow a small daemon with root permissions to perform actions for a userland application through a secure RPC channel.

[0] https://github.com/rugarciap/Turbo-Boost-Switcher

[1] https://developer.apple.com/library/archive/documentation/Se...

[2] https://developer.apple.com/documentation/servicemanagement/...

Re: Show HN: Turbo Boost Disable for macOS

#6

Post by georgebarnett » Tue, Feb 11, 2020, 11:09 AM UTC

nicebill8 wrote: post #4

aaronharnly wrote: post #2

Looks neat! Shouldn't there be a better way to get the required permissions than asking the user to put their login password in a plaintext file?

There's likely a way to get root without having to read the password each time, this is just what I managed to hack together. If anyone has any ideas/suggestions I would be happy to fix this ASAP!

Allow the script to run under sudo without a password.

Re: Show HN: Turbo Boost Disable for macOS

#7

Post by jphoward » Tue, Feb 11, 2020, 11:12 AM UTC

This is not at all meant to be a criticism, but more a question: is taking a 20% performance hit, as the author writes, really worth it for a theoretical improvement in the lifespan of some integrated circuits? Are ICs actually how modern laptops break?

What do you think the odds are in him realising this benefit? Assuming he bins the laptop after, say, 5 years? (he's rich enough to buy a £1.3k minimum laptop, assuming it wasn't second hand)

It relies on several assumptions: 1) His laptop dies before he bins it in 5 years' time 2) It died becuase of an integrated circuit (the reason he cites) - in my experience old computers tend to die of things like exploded motherboard capacitors rather than ICs. Maybe the death of these are accelerated by turbo boost, too? 3) The integrated circuit's death was hastened by a meaningful amount (several months at least; a dodgy thing dying a couple of days/weeks later doesn't save you from buying a new laptop).

Is taking a 20% performance hit on your laptop really worth this? I'm interested. I can't imagine it would be for the vast majority of people.

Re: Show HN: Turbo Boost Disable for macOS

#8

Post by stefan_ » Tue, Feb 11, 2020, 11:14 AM UTC

aequitas wrote: post #5

I know it's not protocol to talk down Show HN submissions. But this is just a shell script loading a core component of TBS [0] during login without password prompts: by saving your password in a plain text file. I can agree that password prompts at login are not the best user experience but security is there for a reason. Maybe TBS should implement this using the privileged helper pattern [1] which allow a small daem…

Well, it also loads a random kernel extension that is only there as a binary blob that the author didn't make.

Re: Show HN: Turbo Boost Disable for macOS

#9

Post by tibbetts » Tue, Feb 11, 2020, 11:15 AM UTC

I’m not an OSX expert, but it seems like you should be able to make a compiled binary to do this and then give it setuid permissions, avoiding the need for a password. At least that is how I would do it on other unixes.

Re: Show HN: Turbo Boost Disable for macOS

#10

Post by nicebill8 » Tue, Feb 11, 2020, 11:15 AM UTC

jphoward wrote: post #7

This is not at all meant to be a criticism, but more a question: is taking a 20% performance hit, as the author writes, really worth it for a theoretical improvement in the lifespan of some integrated circuits? Are ICs actually how modern laptops break? What do you think the odds are in him realising this benefit? Assuming he bins the laptop after, say, 5 years? (he's rich enough to buy a £1.3k minimum laptop, assumi…

The main problem is really the heat/battery life—my laptop has a 6-core processor inside it with seriously inadequate cooling performance (with it being so thin). I guess the lifespan argument is technically be true but isn't the main reason I disable TB.

The 20% is worth it for me because the computer seems to be fast enough anyway.