Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Welcome to the M1 Windows project

amarioguy.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 276 posts

Re: Welcome to the M1 Windows project

#231

Post by saagarjha »

mappu wrote: post #211
amarioguy wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Project developer here, Windows actually has a x64 compatibility layer now for ARM64 systems in general, so any ARM64 Windows device should be able to run x64 apps (granted the performance penalty is worse than Rosetta since Rosetta relies on Apple SoCs actually implementing small slices of x86 (memory ordering model for instance) which isn't true for any Qualcomm SoC at the moment.) The problem with x64 on arm64 is…

It turns out Rosetta2 does not rely on special M1 hardware memory ordering at all: https://twitter.com/never_released/status/153412764108259328... https://twitter.com/marcan42/status/1534032369166225409 The baseline for translation is qemu-user, but other pure-software emulators like FEX-emu and Box86/Box64 can perform this translation significantly faster. So I think there's just ordinary performance engineering to…

Yes it does, you’re misunderstanding the tweets. You need TSO to emulate x86-64 correctly.

Re: Welcome to the M1 Windows project

#232

Post by colordrops »

Thorrez wrote: post #214
colordrops wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is not with the GPL. The GPL is just as enforceable as any other proprietary license. The difference is that these amateur projects often don't have the resources to fight infringement.

If the problem is that there are no resources to fight infringement, then how would changing the license help at all?

I was addressing what seems to be an unfair criticism of the GPL, and not claiming that the license would help. In fact your comment reinforces the point - even a proprietary license wouldn't help with no legal backing.

Re: Welcome to the M1 Windows project

#233

Post by Kwpolska »

shawnz wrote: post #189
tediousdemise wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IANAL but I'd like a license that goes something like this: Companies: If you are working for a company/corporation/profit-generating entity, or otherwise intend to sell or use such code derived from this repository for profit-generating purposes, you shall not be permitted to use any of the source code herein until you email me (author email here) and we can come up with the appropriate terms and conditions for your…

Imagine you license a word processor this way, would it then be a violation to use that word processor to edit your resume?

Microsoft Office does that: https://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/msoffice/forum/all/licen...

It might be technically a violation, but nobody’s going to send a license audit to a private citizen.

Re: Welcome to the M1 Windows project

#234

Post by augustl »

alwaysanon wrote: post #201

I am struggling to see here how this shouldn't be something that Microsoft does itself. And, if Microsoft is doing it, they can just call Apple and get what they need re: documentation or specs or questions answered. They might just need appropriate NDAs between the two companies (which I'd have to imagine they already have?)? With Linux they have to reverse-engineer it. Microsoft shouldn't need to...

The current rumor is that Apple is open to Microsoft doing it, and that Microsoft has an exclusive license with Qualcomm for ARM windows. This license expires soon.

> "that's really up to Microsoft," [Craig Federighi] said. "We have the core technologies for them to do that, to run their ARM version of Windows, which in turn of course supports x86 user mode applications. But that's a decision Microsoft has to make, to bring to license that technology for users to run on these Macs. But the Macs are certainly very capable of it."

From: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2020/11/we-are-giddy-intervi...

Exclusivity deal rumor: https://www.xda-developers.com/qualcomm-exclusivity-deal-mic...

Re: Welcome to the M1 Windows project

#235

Post by justinclift »

ngcc_hk wrote: post #226
pabs3 wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Discriminating against commercial usage is not allowed under the Open Source Definition: https://opensource.org/osd

In fact this is whole point of open source VS free source.

Doesn't seem accurate?

Both Free (of the FSF meaning) and Open Source (of the OSI meaning) software explicitly allow for commercial usage.

Re: Welcome to the M1 Windows project

#236

Post by sgjohnson »

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #30
foo92691 wrote: post #11

I'm a bit shocked that it would even be possible for a third party to implement such a thing without rebuilding Windows itself. Is it a matter of implementing "device drivers"?

Well, if you ask the Asahi Linux team, heck no this isn't possible. Windows doesn't understand the Apple Interrupt Controller and a driver (at least in theory) should not be able to fix that without major kernel changes. However , they actually address this with the "What makes Windows on M1 hard?" area and talk about using a vGIC to do an extremely lightweight pseudo-hypervisor as a workaround. An interesting theory…

> Microsoft could send a legal letter at any time.

If the author doesn't distribute any Microsoft IP, there's nothing Microsoft can do.

Re: Welcome to the M1 Windows project

#237

Post by j1elo »

pabs3 wrote: post #209
colordrops wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How exactly is that? There are plenty of licenses that don't allow commercial usage.

Discriminating against commercial usage is not allowed under the Open Source Definition: https://opensource.org/osd

Hence the full circle to my original sarcastic joke. The OS definition serves a purpose of protecting users, even the bad ones, and maybe that worked when the "bad ones" where a minority with small impact.

But nowadays things have changed. The "bad ones" are big fish, and have enormous impact. A growing subset of devs now start looking elsewhere, and a plethora of non-OS licenses start to pop out. People still want to give their work for free, as long as it is not going to help someone else get rich while the original author doesn't see a cent.

One day, maybe, some organization will study the current landscape, and write a new set of definitions that are able to catch the spirit of this new situation. I guess it's just a natural part of how things evolve.

Re: Welcome to the M1 Windows project

#238

Post by sgjohnson »

oofbey wrote: post #196
rollinggoron wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would Microsoft not want this? They make money off of selling Windows licenses, not selling hardware (Yes, I'm aware the Surface exists). The more available hardware to install Windows etc on, the more $ Microsoft makes.

Balmer or not, Microsoft is still in direct competition with Apple for much of its core business. So encouraging customers to buy a laptop where they get $50 for the windows license and if they're lucky another $100 in software sales, but their key competitor gets >=$1000 of profit -- yeah, it's pretty clearly a bad business choice.

Not really. OEMs pay significantly less for Windows licenses than they are retailed for.

And Windows sales to consumers haven't been a core part of their business for a while now. It's all about cloud and enterprise.

Re: Welcome to the M1 Windows project

#239

Post by sgjohnson »

singhrac wrote: post #88
usrn wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think Microsoft sees a future in Windows. Their current strategy seems to be one of extracting as much value from it as possible until it dies.

Really? I think Windows is in the best state it's ever been... WSL is incredibly nice to use as a development platform, and many well-designed apps have a Windows version ever since Electron started becoming the de facto standard.

Electron is a steaming pile of garbage and I wish it a swift and sudden death.

Electron "apps" aren't apps. They are glorified webpages.

Re: Welcome to the M1 Windows project

#240

Post by sgjohnson »

singhrac wrote: post #152
usrn wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So Linux/GNU is a great dev environment and Electron is the standard for building apps. Tell me how exactly you think this means Windows is a healthy platform?

Hmm, I guess you must mean that the native Windows development environment (i.e. .NET/Windows App SDK) isn't very developer friendly; I'm afraid I don't have any idea or how to compare it to Swift or Cocoa. As a user, though, I have better access to software and tools than ever before!

I'd argue that the quality of software on Windows specifically has decreased significantly since the rise of Electron.
Post reply on HN