141–150 of 359 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
can you please tell us what have they done for open source except LLVM.
Swift, WebKit, Darwin/XNU, MLX, FoundationDB, Container, Pkl, libdispatch (GCD), CUPS, CareKit, ResearchKit, Kubernetes, Cassandra, Spark, Netty, Solr…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Makes you wonder who's choice it was to launch a half-finished rocket. AMD and Intel's rockets sit on the launch pad with GPU/CPU drivers shipped for Linux before T-10.
Their Silicon was written to be OS agnostic, Apple's was not.
i don't think that's accurate. the M series chips and memory architecture enable capabilities for the OS software to take advantage of, and the software and hardware teams get to collaborate to be ready for a simultaneously launch, but nothing about that is macos specific, just that they're on the same side of a walled garden.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> when they can just share a pdf. I assume your question was in good faith, but the information needed to support an entire platform like this is not as simple as sharing a PDF. I’ve spent parts of my career working on much simpler platforms than an entire Apple laptop where we would have to work through 10,000 page PDFs documenting registers and even that was not enough to get the full picture of the system. You hav…
If you’ve ever tried to lock down a mac and dealt with the 100s of system services, you’d know why. I like the hardware and base os, but I have no idea what those services are doing. Many are undocumented. A lot can’t be disabled, even with SIP disabled. And, they’re chatty and persistent in trying to communicate out. You can kind of disable communication of TCP/IP but they’ll find alternatives - like low power bluet…
My Mac Mini M4 is for building the Mac/iOS apps, other than that it's useless as a daily driver. I will patiently wait for Asahi while I use my other computers that can run serious operating systems.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Their Silicon was written to be OS agnostic, Apple's was not.
> Their Silicon was written to be OS agnostic, Apple's was not. i don't think that's accurate. the M series chips and memory architecture enable capabilities for the OS software to take advantage of, and the software and hardware teams get to collaborate to be ready for a simultaneously launch, but nothing about that is macos specific, just that they're on the same side of a walled garden.
From Wikipedia:
One of the key reasons why Rosetta 2 provides such a high level of translation efficiency is the support of x86-64 memory ordering in the M1 SoC.[12] The SoC also has dedicated instructions for computing x86 flags.
So, Apple always adds one more thing to their hardware to enable their magic.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosetta_(software)#Rosetta_2
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Makes you wonder who's choice it was to launch a half-finished rocket. AMD and Intel's rockets sit on the launch pad with GPU/CPU drivers shipped for Linux before T-10.
They publish documentation because they need OEMs to be willing to support their products. Apple doesn’t. Apple consumes it, so Apple always has a customer.
This is a shocking development.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And Linux support on M Macs would also have a "real job", what is your point exactly? I find it so bizarre that some of you here are defending a megacorporation that could have easily afforded to provide drivers for Linux Kernel like their competitors do. You're clapping for free volunteers to spend hundreds of hours reverse engineering Thunderbolt controllers when companies like Intel outright contribute them.
The reverse of that argument is why are you applauding Intel for doing something they had to do well in order to get any sales?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Regardless, saying it would be too much effort for Apple is laughable at best. Even more so when Apple used to release such docs in the past when it was much less financially capable. They just don't care.
> Regardless, saying it would be too much effort for Apple That's not what they said. Please don't misrepresent > is laughabe And this disparaging language about commenters is not OK. Please stop.
Nothing about that statement is disparaging - just because you don't want to hear it, doesn't make it insulting.
Calling out nonsense is important, especially on this website.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Their Silicon was written to be OS agnostic, Apple's was not. i don't think that's accurate. the M series chips and memory architecture enable capabilities for the OS software to take advantage of, and the software and hardware teams get to collaborate to be ready for a simultaneously launch, but nothing about that is macos specific, just that they're on the same side of a walled garden.
Apple silicon has features specifically designed for macOS or software running on macOS. e.g.: Rosetta 2. From Wikipedia: One of the key reasons why Rosetta 2 provides such a high level of translation efficiency is the support of x86-64 memory ordering in the M1 SoC.[12] The SoC also has dedicated instructions for computing x86 flags. So, Apple always adds one more thing to their hardware to enable their magic. [0]:…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And Linux support on M Macs would also have a "real job", what is your point exactly? I find it so bizarre that some of you here are defending a megacorporation that could have easily afforded to provide drivers for Linux Kernel like their competitors do. You're clapping for free volunteers to spend hundreds of hours reverse engineering Thunderbolt controllers when companies like Intel outright contribute them.
The reverse of that argument is why are you applauding Intel for doing something they had to do well in order to get any sales?
Sure, they relied on community Linux drivers in the past, but that didn't have anything to do with money.