Live data from Hacker News

OpenBSD boots multi-user on Apple M1 hardware

marc.info

121–130 of 204 posts

Re: OpenBSD boots multi-user on Apple M1 hardware

#121
post #64
post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you have a mainstream motherboard, you'll likely have Realtek Ethernet drivers. These do not reliably work in OpenBSD and will hang if you try to use it as a NAS.

I’ve found when shopping for a motherboard, it’s usually $10-20 more for intel ethernet, which is a much better experience under Linux and *BSD

Unless you want to build on the Ryzen platform for ECC support on the consumer series.

Re: OpenBSD boots multi-user on Apple M1 hardware

#122

So much for the many remarks made on HN claiming that Apple would use the M1 to further exert control over users’ ability to boot an alternative OS. Between this and Asahi Linux, I’d say things are off to a good start. Btw, Asahi has a Patreon page for anyone who wants to contribute. I’m tossing twelve bucks a month and recommend any Mac users with interest in booting alternative OSes support such projects. Now I’m g…

I'm not sure I understand what Apple contributed here. It's not supported, helped, or encouraged by Apple. And Apple does not document their H/W in ways that allow reuse. Hence these are all reverse engineering projects. Apple _is_ a walled garden ecosystem. That has many obvious advantages, things just work, etc. Personally I happen to not like it, but it's a choice folks have to make by themselves. I buy my H/W fro…

What would Apple even have to lose by proving the specification and documentation needed to boot alternative operating systems? People would still need to by the hardware from Apple and the number of people who even consider this option is so small that the PR it would bring easily outweight any potential cost. How many bought the Intel Macs initially because: If it doesn’t workout, I just install Windows.

Linux users would buy M1, with the intention of running Linux, and if it doesn’t work, they can still run macOS.

I don’t see the risk to Apple, if they at least provided documentation for the M1.

Re: OpenBSD boots multi-user on Apple M1 hardware

#123

Running an alternative OS "natively" on a Mac doesn't seem very appealing to me. It's almost guaranteed you will never fully get Wi-Fi, audio, graphics acceleration, the trackpad, etc. working flawlessly, especially on the M1 where almost every component is Apple proprietary and it's not a matter of loading, say, some common Intel graphics driver. On the other hand, virtualization _already_ lets you run whatever arm6…

Being able to run OpenBSD or FreeBSD on a M1 mini would be AWESOME. That little machine is pretty powerful and does not need much power to do what it does.

If you are talking purely about desktop, I have to agree with you that the only real option is MacOS because of all the apple-only stuff (at least for now until drivers show up)

But there's more uses of hardware then desktops.

Re: OpenBSD boots multi-user on Apple M1 hardware

#124
post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Apple _is_ a walled garden ecosystem. That has many obvious advantages, things just work, etc. This is just false. iOS is a walled garden. The Mac is not by anyone’s definition.

Mac is a walled garden. What if I want to convert my OS to a VM and/or run it on a different hardware? AFAIK it’s prohibited by the license.

By that definition, the OEM versions of Windows would be walled gardens too.

Re: OpenBSD boots multi-user on Apple M1 hardware

#125

Running an alternative OS "natively" on a Mac doesn't seem very appealing to me. It's almost guaranteed you will never fully get Wi-Fi, audio, graphics acceleration, the trackpad, etc. working flawlessly, especially on the M1 where almost every component is Apple proprietary and it's not a matter of loading, say, some common Intel graphics driver. On the other hand, virtualization _already_ lets you run whatever arm6…

Nah, I want to choose the kernel. This statement is a bit presumptuous: "It's almost guaranteed you will never fully get Wi-Fi, audio, graphics acceleration, the trackpad, etc. working flawlessly." Maybe I do not want all those things every time I boot. Apple used an "alternative OS" for their Airport routers: NetBSD. Kernel was around 6.x if I recall correctly. Seemed like Wi-Fi worked preety good, maybe even "flawl…

I'd like to point out that the dmesg indicates a M1 Mac Mini. There is no display, no keyboard, no mouse, no trackpad, etc. I think there may be a 3.5mm headphone jack, though.

Re: OpenBSD boots multi-user on Apple M1 hardware

#126

Running an alternative OS "natively" on a Mac doesn't seem very appealing to me. It's almost guaranteed you will never fully get Wi-Fi, audio, graphics acceleration, the trackpad, etc. working flawlessly, especially on the M1 where almost every component is Apple proprietary and it's not a matter of loading, say, some common Intel graphics driver. On the other hand, virtualization _already_ lets you run whatever arm6…

Nah, I want to choose the kernel. This statement is a bit presumptuous: "It's almost guaranteed you will never fully get Wi-Fi, audio, graphics acceleration, the trackpad, etc. working flawlessly." Maybe I do not want all those things every time I boot. Apple used an "alternative OS" for their Airport routers: NetBSD. Kernel was around 6.x if I recall correctly. Seemed like Wi-Fi worked preety good, maybe even "flawl…

Yes, the Airport routers used various NetBSD versions as their OS. However the wireless drivers where, at least for some versions, proprietary.

Re: OpenBSD boots multi-user on Apple M1 hardware

#127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mac is a walled garden. What if I want to convert my OS to a VM and/or run it on a different hardware? AFAIK it’s prohibited by the license.

By that definition, the OEM versions of Windows would be walled gardens too.

In principle, yes. But at least you can switch to a differently licensed version of the OS if this is your concern.

Re: OpenBSD boots multi-user on Apple M1 hardware

#128

Running an alternative OS "natively" on a Mac doesn't seem very appealing to me. It's almost guaranteed you will never fully get Wi-Fi, audio, graphics acceleration, the trackpad, etc. working flawlessly, especially on the M1 where almost every component is Apple proprietary and it's not a matter of loading, say, some common Intel graphics driver. On the other hand, virtualization _already_ lets you run whatever arm6…

> On the other hand, virtualization _already_ lets you run whatever arm64 BSD, Linux, or Windows that you want. The trackpad and everything else will work flawlessly thanks to guest additions.

The OpenBSD kernel doesn't support loadable kernel modules, so virtual machine guest additions are not an option for a virtualized OpenBSD.

Re: OpenBSD boots multi-user on Apple M1 hardware

#129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nah, I want to choose the kernel. This statement is a bit presumptuous: "It's almost guaranteed you will never fully get Wi-Fi, audio, graphics acceleration, the trackpad, etc. working flawlessly." Maybe I do not want all those things every time I boot. Apple used an "alternative OS" for their Airport routers: NetBSD. Kernel was around 6.x if I recall correctly. Seemed like Wi-Fi worked preety good, maybe even "flawl…

>This statement is a bit presumptuous It's not. Anyone who has followed the last 10 years of Apple devices knows what works and what doesn't.

Do you mean to imply that those things are known not to work?

There have been many Apple devices where all those mentioned things (if present) work under a non-Apple OS. So as usual the truth is somewhere in the middle. From my Linux experience there are a lot of well working MBP models from this time span. And Minis.

Re: OpenBSD boots multi-user on Apple M1 hardware

#130

Running an alternative OS "natively" on a Mac doesn't seem very appealing to me. It's almost guaranteed you will never fully get Wi-Fi, audio, graphics acceleration, the trackpad, etc. working flawlessly, especially on the M1 where almost every component is Apple proprietary and it's not a matter of loading, say, some common Intel graphics driver. On the other hand, virtualization _already_ lets you run whatever arm6…

Most laptops are more or less in the same situation as M1. Maybe they different quantitatively, but not qualitatively: devices do not have (sufficient) specs available and people need to reverse engineer them if you want to run any free OS on them. Yet people want to do that and often manage. Why is M1 different?

What I really would like to see is hardware manufacturers (Apple and anybody else) releasing the specs, so that people are free to do whatever they want with the metal they buy. I might event consider appropriate a legislative intervention in this field.

Post reply on HN