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

Warning: 2016 MacBook Pro is not compatible with Linux

reddit.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 285 posts

Re: Warning: 2016 MacBook Pro is not compatible with Linux

#171

Post by spronkey »

dom0 wrote: post #164
wtallis wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of laptops that advertise NVMe SSDs are using inferior TLC-based or non-Samsung SSDs to check that box. Apple's not alone at the top (especially when aftermarket upgrades are taken into account), but they have been pretty good about using the fastest PCIe SSD that money could buy at the time of release.

True, but I don't think that's common near the price point of Apple hardware. It's also not uncommon in the "lower ranks". I just bought a 800 € ultrabook with a 256 GB Samsung PM961 SSD (NVMe, 2.8 / 1.1 GB/s) and the Skylake i7 for example.

Also, don't forget that one can buy a Samsung 960 Pro in a machine that comes with a cheaper SSD but uses a standard M.2 NVMe slot, and ditch the original SSD, for cheaper than any of Apple's capacity upgrades.

Re: Warning: 2016 MacBook Pro is not compatible with Linux

#172

Post by spronkey »

vbezhenar wrote: post #67
chadgeidel wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Build quality. It's difficult to find a computer that matches the quality of a MacBook for fit and finish, trackpad quality, and battery life. I haven't used the new one, but the 2015 models were among the best hardware on the market - regardless of what OS was installed.

Build quality is awesome. But parts themselves are just ordinary cheap things which fail. And some of them are just an example of poor engineering. I use rmbp 15". My audio port failed in funny way. It's combination of audio port and laser port in one hole. There's some kind of switch there and it's stuck, so computer thinks that I plugged optical cord and refuses to play sound at all. And it's actually not that rare…

"Build quality" on a Mac to me, overall, is usually quite manic. Some things are really good - the finish quality on the materials used is always excellent, hinges are always excellent and long lasting, trackpads, keyboards etc are always finished to high quality and installed with a good degree of precision - you don't see too many uneven gaps etc.

In saying that, you're absolutely right about things like the poor quality cables, idiotic glued batteries, and parts that can't be easily replaced. Even i.e. keyboards - I've replaced Thinkpad keyboards before when they have worn out, simply because the new keyboard feels a lot nicer than a cleaned up abused one.

Re: Warning: 2016 MacBook Pro is not compatible with Linux

#173

Post by spronkey »

chadgeidel wrote: post #128
slantyyz wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Real question: Is battery life a benefit when you're running an OS other than macOS? Doesn't macOS have optimizations that make it better at battery consumption than other OSes?

Of course, macOS has better battery management than recent versions of Windows, but a "barebones" install of Windows (drivers and the tools you use without a bunch of services that run all the time) does have good battery life. I think Apple generally puts more watt-hours in their systems as well, but don't quote me on that. :-)

Not anymore with their thinness obsession :-(

Re: Warning: 2016 MacBook Pro is not compatible with Linux

#174

Post by spronkey »

lorenzhs wrote: post #100
chadgeidel wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Build quality. It's difficult to find a computer that matches the quality of a MacBook for fit and finish, trackpad quality, and battery life. I haven't used the new one, but the 2015 models were among the best hardware on the market - regardless of what OS was installed.

I really like ThinkPads. People keep claiming that build quality has gotten worse, but that doesn't match up with my impression and experience. The T and X series laptops are very well built. The screens aren't as nice as Apple's, and I can't comment on the touchpads (I exclusively use the TrackPoint), but overall they're great machines (and cheap, compared to MacBooks).

ThinkPad's displays have historically been embarrassingly poor for the price of the machines. Only recently do they have displays that I would consider adequate.

Only a few years ago with their IPS upgrades on i.e. X220s, X230s, suffered from numerous issues (poor gamut, image retention).

Re: Warning: 2016 MacBook Pro is not compatible with Linux

#175

Post by wtallis »

dom0 wrote: post #164
wtallis wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of laptops that advertise NVMe SSDs are using inferior TLC-based or non-Samsung SSDs to check that box. Apple's not alone at the top (especially when aftermarket upgrades are taken into account), but they have been pretty good about using the fastest PCIe SSD that money could buy at the time of release.

True, but I don't think that's common near the price point of Apple hardware. It's also not uncommon in the "lower ranks". I just bought a 800 € ultrabook with a 256 GB Samsung PM961 SSD (NVMe, 2.8 / 1.1 GB/s) and the Skylake i7 for example.

The Samsung PM961 is not top of the line. It's one of the more recent TLC-based alternatives that shares a controller with the top of the line products, but it's inherently slower and less power efficient.

Re: Warning: 2016 MacBook Pro is not compatible with Linux

#176

Post by jpetso »

tinus_hn wrote: post #120
loopbit wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> by changing the security settings on the computer Sierra has disabled the "install from any source" option (although you can re-enable it with some terminal magic). How long until they disable the identified developers option too and leave a system like the iphone?

If the user cannot be trusted to make reasonable choices because he doesn't understand or want to read security popups, you have to make the choice for them. That's what Apple is doing and so is Microsoft. It's the only way to go if you want a secure system. And guess what: people appreciate a stable, secure system that makes it difficult to distribute malware. They appreciate it more than fear-mongering about theore…

> If the user cannot be trusted to make reasonable choices because he doesn't understand or want to read security popups, you have to make the choice for them.

I would bring up a libertarian argument to counter this view, but unfortunately I don't politically lean that way do it wouldn't be authentic. Somebody definitely should make that point, though.

Re: Warning: 2016 MacBook Pro is not compatible with Linux

#177

Post by spronkey »

ilaksh wrote: post #136
21 wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And for the price of a Ferarri you can get 5 Toyotas, 2 scooters and monthly passes for the subway for a year. I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

MacBooks aren't Ferraris.

Indeed. More like BMWs.

Re: Warning: 2016 MacBook Pro is not compatible with Linux

#178

Post by Tinyyy »

mderazon wrote: post #92
pinkrooftop wrote: post #3

A more accurate description is that Linux isn't compatible with the new Macbook Pro. It's not Apple's job to make their laptop compatible with Linux.

Which sounds more accurate? 1. Windows is not compatible with the new MacBook pro 2. The new MacBook pro is not compatible with Windows ?

1. Don't Linux users always complain about software not being compatible with Linux? Or is Linux not compatible with photoshop?

Re: Warning: 2016 MacBook Pro is not compatible with Linux

#179

Post by Tinyyy »

dom0 wrote: post #163
bluedino wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The latest MBP leapfrogged the rest of the market again

Specs seem to be 3.1 GB/s read and 2.1 GB/s write speed. While that's faster than most M.2 SSDs, equally-or-better specced SSDs are already on the market, eg. Samsung 960 Pro (3.5 / 2.1 GB/s).

It's kinda disingenuous to say that the 960 Pro is already on the market when it's not for sale yet.

Re: Warning: 2016 MacBook Pro is not compatible with Linux

#180

Post by cyrus_ »

eridius wrote: post #153
cyrus_ wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An Apple developer account costs $99/year. The ethical problem on macOS is that Apple is imposing artificial technical barriers to push people to pay Apple what amounts to "protection" money. On iOS, there is no reasonable way to bypass the app store for the vast majority of users.

The fact that you apparently don't understand the security implications here and the reasons why Apple is pushing for codesigning does not mean that Apple is putting up artificial barriers out of greed. That's a pretty ludicrous claim - do you really think the $99/year Apple gets from developers (who aren't already paying for iOS) even registers as a blip on their balance sheets? The next time you see something you d…

I suspect it is you that doesn't understand the security implications -- if all it takes is $99/year to gain the ability to sign arbitrary code, then there is no security benefit whatsoever. Pure security theater.

Obviously, the $99/year isn't making Apple a lot of money. But what it is doing is creating a culture of acceptance around Apple-as-gatekeeper. The iOS app store is most certainly making Apple a non-trivial amount of money (yes I know its a small percentage of their total at the moment.)

Post reply on HN