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

Gnome Shell on the Apple M1, bare metal

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 141 posts

Re: Gnome Shell on the Apple M1, bare metal

#121

Post by marcan_42 »

caskstrength wrote: post #113
marcan_42 wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nouveau has a problem with nonredistributable firmware. We don't have that problem because Apple distributes their firmware themselves and it gets loaded before Linux boots. I already put together a prototype installer that deals with the whole firmware situation for users. I've been porting Linux to undocumented platforms for 10 years and the main barrier to getting it polished is motivational, not technical. It's p…

Okay, Hector, so assuming your Patreon reaches 100% when can we expect to have Linux working on M1 with similar performance, battery life and hardware video decoding in mplayer and Firefox?

There's no way to make hard promises about reverse engineering projects, but if you want an educated guess: basic accelerated graphics by the end of this year, and polish to the level of proper sleep states/PM/video decode and such by the end of 2022.

Re: Gnome Shell on the Apple M1, bare metal

#122

Post by phonon »

distances wrote: post #82
phonon wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually not--a 5900HX is about 1400/7500 (ST/MT GB5) An M1 is about 1700/7600. So call that a tie for MT, and 20% faster in ST...with a chip using about a third the power.

No, M1 is clearly slower in multi-core (to be fair, it has fewer threads). Not sure where you got your numbers from. 5900HX gets about 7800 in Geekbench 5, and the difference is much larger in some other multi-core tests. For example Cinebench gives 7800 for M1, 13800 for 5900HX. E.g. https://nanoreview.net/en/cpu-compare/apple-m1-vs-amd-ryzen-...

It says in your link there is a 3% difference in "Geekbench 5 (Multi-Core)" between the two? I would say that is practically equivalent, particularly since 5900HX comes in several TDPs. (It says "54 Watt" at your link.)

I took my data from perusing the Geekbench DB for the latest submissions...

Re: Gnome Shell on the Apple M1, bare metal

#123

Post by caskstrength »

marcan_42 wrote: post #121
caskstrength wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay, Hector, so assuming your Patreon reaches 100% when can we expect to have Linux working on M1 with similar performance, battery life and hardware video decoding in mplayer and Firefox?

There's no way to make hard promises about reverse engineering projects, but if you want an educated guess: basic accelerated graphics by the end of this year, and polish to the level of proper sleep states/PM/video decode and such by the end of 2022.

> There's no way to make hard promises about reverse engineering projects, but if you want an educated guess: basic accelerated graphics by the end of this year, and polish to the level of proper sleep states/PM/video decode and such by the end of 2022.

Thanks for the honest response. IMO you are being _extremely_ optimistic, but I would be glad to be proved wrong on this one.

Re: Gnome Shell on the Apple M1, bare metal

#124

Post by varispeed »

jeppesen-io wrote: post #21

I know a pipedream, but if apple provided the docs and drivers for Linux on m1, it would really cement the current defacto standard of a MacBook as the development laptop of choice Amazing progress - but I wonder if getting accelerated gui is 10x the current effort No skin in the game, but can't wait to see how this progresses

We need a legislation that will compel hardware manufacturers to provide such documentation. Simply so that we can reduce e-waste and protect the consumer in case manufacturer decides to abandon the platform or change it so its use is no longer safe or acceptable.

Re: Gnome Shell on the Apple M1, bare metal

#125

Post by somewhatbetter »

Octoth0rpe wrote: post #116
somewhatbetter wrote: post #99

Why is it newsworthy if a programer gets a program running on a general purpose computer? I mean 89 comments seems to be a lot for this.

> Why is it newsworthy if a programer gets a program running on a general purpose computer? In some sense, a computer with nearly entirely undocumented hardware isn't 'general purpose'. This effort is literally the process of taking a non-general purpose computer and turning it into a general purpose computer, and the news is that a major milestone has been reached.

Then please define me what a "general purpose computer" means.

Re: Gnome Shell on the Apple M1, bare metal

#126

Post by wil421 »

pkulak wrote: post #24

I’m so worried this project will get 95% of the way there, and then all the fun issues will run out and the M1 will be just another MacBook with WiFi, Bluetooth and sleep issues. The obvious issue is to pay someone to do the work, and I am, but I still can’t shake the fear.

Years ago I did a hackintosh just for fun but it was completely unusable. NIC issues and no way to use Ethernet. There were keyboard and mouse issues but they were easy to work around.

Re: Gnome Shell on the Apple M1, bare metal

#127

Post by distances »

phonon wrote: post #122
distances wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, M1 is clearly slower in multi-core (to be fair, it has fewer threads). Not sure where you got your numbers from. 5900HX gets about 7800 in Geekbench 5, and the difference is much larger in some other multi-core tests. For example Cinebench gives 7800 for M1, 13800 for 5900HX. E.g. https://nanoreview.net/en/cpu-compare/apple-m1-vs-amd-ryzen-...

It says in your link there is a 3% difference in "Geekbench 5 (Multi-Core)" between the two? I would say that is practically equivalent, particularly since 5900HX comes in several TDPs. (It says "54 Watt" at your link.) I took my data from perusing the Geekbench DB for the latest submissions...

Yeah I agree GB5 is roughly equivalent, others not so. Anyway this is just me being pedantic as so many people seem to think for whatever reason that M1 is the most powerful mobile chip while it certainly isn't. I do expect Apple's follow-up chips to take the multi-core lead too eventually.

Re: Gnome Shell on the Apple M1, bare metal

#128

Post by NoGravitas »

lal wrote: post #75
laumars wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is true for almost any random laptop, and has been since forever. Not this old trope again. I haven’t had WiFi and sleep issues with Linux for at least a decade (I don’t use Bluetooth on laptops so can’t comment there). And I do use random laptops, including MBPs. People seem to hold on to the same old arguments about Linux that were true back when XP was released but things have unsurprisingly moved on since…

Haven't had any Bluetooth issues in the better part of a decade on any laptop running Linux, and I've been using Bluetooth headphones as my main audio output for the majority of that time, so I'd think I would have.

Counterpoint: I have an old ThinkPad, known for good compatibility. WiFi and sleep work great. Bluetooth? Not so much. It works, but I get lots of random disconnections, after which I may or may not be able to reconnect.

Re: Gnome Shell on the Apple M1, bare metal

#129

Post by alsetmusic »

pkulak wrote: post #24

I’m so worried this project will get 95% of the way there, and then all the fun issues will run out and the M1 will be just another MacBook with WiFi, Bluetooth and sleep issues. The obvious issue is to pay someone to do the work, and I am, but I still can’t shake the fear.

> The obvious issue is to pay someone to do the work, and I am, but I still can’t shake the fear.

Sounds like you’re already onboard, so this comment isn’t for you. For those who don’t know, you can donate to this project directly. Please sign up if you want to see this project succeed. I’m not affiliated, just a fan of the work.

https://asahilinux.org/support/

Re: Gnome Shell on the Apple M1, bare metal

#130

Post by zamadatix »

DonHopkins wrote: post #115
zamadatix wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "it was all designed by Apple so can't be outperformed in parts" has got to be a trope at this point. If that's the case why is Chrome able to put benchmark Safari on my M1? Not to mention the OS shouldn't be the bottleneck for anything performance related in a desktop type system anyways.

Where did you get that quote? It's certainly not what I wrote, or meant. And what is a "put benchmark"? Why would you only benchmark a web browser's HTTP "PUT" method?

The quote is to describe the aforementioned integration trope, not sure it has a succinct name beyond that hence the long description in quotes. It first got really popular when it was note one of the iPhone A* processors added JavaScript specific rounding to much "that's how safari can be so great on this device release, it integrates straight to the hardware" only to find out from a safari dev it hadn't even gained that yet. Yes end to end integration is a huge boon to a consistent user experience but it doesn't change efficiency nearly as !uch as some like to think, certainly not more than can be gained from normal optimizations still available and it's certainly not the ultimate goalpost even for consistent experience just a great aid.

Put = out, please forgive mbile keyboard while on a plane :). I do like the level of creativity for an http put benchmark though!

Post reply on HN