Live data from Hacker News

OpenBSD boots multi-user on Apple M1 hardware

marc.info

161–170 of 204 posts

Re: OpenBSD boots multi-user on Apple M1 hardware

#161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think M1 is a perfect example of why one might want to consider Apple's hardware and software in isolation, rather than a single integrated piece. There isn't currently another ARM laptop with the same performance characteristics. There have been other times when I thought apple hardware was more interesting than macOS. I don't think macOS is bad per se. There are times when I find it pleasant and times when I woul…

I get it. It's a matter of perspective. As a Linux/ OpenBSD user, Mac hardware is suddenly a bit more appealing. As a Mac user, the reverse it not true. OpenBSD or Linux are no more appealing than it was before the switch. As for the rest of your post, I feel like the conversation is moving here under me. Use whatever OS you want. I don't see a ton of Mac people on here discouraging or disparaging any of this. I do s…

This is a solid reply, thanks.

I like those middle 2 lines; for a user of a free OS, Mac hardware is interesting, but the reverse is not true.

And sure, "use whatever OS you want" is kind of my point too. I have seen the Mac community at large seeming to not have that live and let live attitude. Not anyone on this thread, but I think it is a thing that happens.

Re: OpenBSD boots multi-user on Apple M1 hardware

#162
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.

That is nobody’s definition of a walled garden.

You can run whatever you like on Mac Hardware.

You can run whatever software you like on Mac OS.

Installing MacOS on computers you haven’t licensed it for is just that.

It’s not free software. It is commercial software.

You are conflating the concept of commercial software with the concept of a walled garden.

Re: OpenBSD boots multi-user on Apple M1 hardware

#163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sure but the OEM version of Windows is not a walled garden.

You are just trying to make a definition of walled garden that isn’t what people generally mean so you can include MacOS within it.

Re: OpenBSD boots multi-user on Apple M1 hardware

#164
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.

It is in some aspects, so I am not surprised that there are people willing to claim that the walls are too high for them. Personally, they could be a bit lower but I can still see over them I’m not up in arms quite yet.

Configuration defaults do not a walled garden make.

Re: OpenBSD boots multi-user on Apple M1 hardware

#165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not you. Just frustrated by the seeming religious fervor some Apple-haters have. Seems like sometimes people are willing to go through great contortions to figure out how whatever Apple did is wrong. Totally understand why people might prefer Linux/ Windows/ Amiga/ whatever. People should just enjoy what they want.

> Just frustrated by the seeming religious fervor some Apple-haters have. It goes both ways. I'd add that atleast the "Apple-haters" have more of a standing in defending open computing standards and demanding Apple be open too.

Dishonest redefinition doesn’t create standing.

Also - why does hating Apple give anyone any right to demand anything from them?

Why not demand more from people who are actually working on Open computing?

Re: OpenBSD boots multi-user on Apple M1 hardware

#166
post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No need to invent whole new things or shift definitions just so you can complain about them. Since I agree with you, I assume this is aimed at the comment I’m responding to it, and those like it, rather than me.

Not you. Just frustrated by the seeming religious fervor some Apple-haters have. Seems like sometimes people are willing to go through great contortions to figure out how whatever Apple did is wrong. Totally understand why people might prefer Linux/ Windows/ Amiga/ whatever. People should just enjoy what they want.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26212454

Re: OpenBSD boots multi-user on Apple M1 hardware

#167
post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point was that the phone has supplanted the computer as the sole device for many people i.e. people of my generation will often ask for an app rather than a website

That is a fair point. I just found it important to point out that for many use-cases, including most of the ones in this discussion, phones are a complete nonstarter. I do apologize for how aggressively I came across as well, that was uncalled for.

> I do apologize for how aggressively I came across as well, that was uncalled for.

No problem https://xkcd.com/386/ - you know the drill!

Re: OpenBSD boots multi-user on Apple M1 hardware

#168
post #162

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.

That is nobody’s definition of a walled garden. You can run whatever you like on Mac Hardware. You can run whatever software you like on Mac OS. Installing MacOS on computers you haven’t licensed it for is just that. It’s not free software. It is commercial software. You are conflating the concept of commercial software with the concept of a walled garden.

> You are conflating the concept of commercial software with the concept of a walled garden.

Commercial software is the software for which developers get money. It can include free software, too. It has nothing to do with the license or the topic we are discussing. You are conflating the concepts here.

Walled garden in general is a convenient system, from which a user can hardly escape when the users wants to. This is exactly what Mac license does. Wikipedia has Mac OS as an example of a walled garden. I did not make it up myself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Walled_garden_(te...

Re: OpenBSD boots multi-user on Apple M1 hardware

#169

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.

"Presumptuous" meaning it presumes what a user will want to do with a computer. In this case, the computer comes with no display, no keyboard, no mouse, no trackpad, etc.

Re: OpenBSD boots multi-user on Apple M1 hardware

#170
post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is nobody’s definition of a walled garden. You can run whatever you like on Mac Hardware. You can run whatever software you like on Mac OS. Installing MacOS on computers you haven’t licensed it for is just that. It’s not free software. It is commercial software. You are conflating the concept of commercial software with the concept of a walled garden.

> You are conflating the concept of commercial software with the concept of a walled garden. Commercial software is the software for which developers get money. It can include free software, too. It has nothing to do with the license or the topic we are discussing. You are conflating the concepts here. Walled garden in general is a convenient system, from which a user can hardly escape when the users wants to. This i…

That seems to be just false.

The Wikipedia article does mention Mac OS, but does not, anywhere, use it as an example of a walled garden.

Here is the definition from the page you link:

“A closed platform, walled garden, or closed ecosystem[1][2] is a software system wherein the carrier or service provider has control over applications, content, and media, and restricts convenient access to non-approved applicants or content. This is in contrast to an open platform, wherein consumers generally have unrestricted access to applications and content.“

This definition is simply not true of Mac OS.

Post reply on HN