Live data from Hacker News

OpenBSD boots multi-user on Apple M1 hardware

marc.info

201–204 of 204 posts

Re: OpenBSD boots multi-user on Apple M1 hardware

#201
post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes, it is. See the other discussion.

The other discussion links to a Wikipedia article which shows that it is not:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26230338

Windows and MacOS have the same entries in the table which means it’s not a walled garden as defined in the piece.

Re: OpenBSD boots multi-user on Apple M1 hardware

#202

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…

> 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 "flawlessly". That’s a nice strawman you got here. AirPort routers shipped with NetBSD, and it was officially supported. But good luck getting macOS to run on that — macOS would count as the “alternative OS” for the AirPort.

Maybe running MacOS is not that important to me. Maybe I am just interested in the hardware, not the Apple OS.

Re: OpenBSD boots multi-user on Apple M1 hardware

#203
post #44
post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you're misrepresenting the point, the point people make is that apple curating apps on the app store is a good thing for user privacy and minimizing spyware, and that allowing sideloading or third-party app stores would immediately negate that as some of the biggest, most intrusive, and most socially-inescapeable apps (like facebook) would immediately demand they be sideloaded in order to escape the apple rules on pe…

I'm sure microsoft would've made the same argument in their anti-trust case - you're free to "sideload" any browser you want, or just buy a mac. Most apple users have almost zero-information in an economic sense. Market choices are being made when consumers are being segmented into very rigid, hard to leave, cultures like Apple and Google - on top of that Apple and partly google own much of the stores, they do all th…

> I'm sure microsoft would've made the same argument in their anti-trust case

OK, let's talk Microsoft then.

https://www.theverge.com/2020/6/19/21296657/microsoft-apple-...

Microsoft is making exactly the same argument as Epic Games, in fact, but they're not racing to allow third-party app stores on the Xbox either. This is a one-way street, these companies want to sell locked-down hardware but be allowed onto their competitors' platforms.

Similarly Facebook runs similarly exclusive stores on their Oculus Quest platform, which they also argue they should not have to open up.

This is purely down to companies who themselves employ similarly locked-down stores, which they feel should not have to be similarly opened, wrapping themselves in the language of openness and using it to attack their competitors' business models while arguing they themselves should be excluded. They are not making a good-faith argument for openness, they are using the legal system to take down a competitor.

Frankly I have much less problem with Microsoft opening up, since we don't do day-to-day business on our game consoles. How about they go first, model for us how an ethical company is supposed to behave?

> And also, your mum isn't going to be using third party app stores,

Yeah, actually, she will, that is the point. If she wants to use Facebook, she will use a third-party app store (where the application is not subject to Apple's rules about permissions and datamining). This is an immediate race to the bottom, won't even be a year and the superior privacy of the Apple ecosystem will have been completely undermined.

Re: OpenBSD boots multi-user on Apple M1 hardware

#204
post #44
post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you're misrepresenting the point, the point people make is that apple curating apps on the app store is a good thing for user privacy and minimizing spyware, and that allowing sideloading or third-party app stores would immediately negate that as some of the biggest, most intrusive, and most socially-inescapeable apps (like facebook) would immediately demand they be sideloaded in order to escape the apple rules on pe…

I'm sure microsoft would've made the same argument in their anti-trust case - you're free to "sideload" any browser you want, or just buy a mac. Most apple users have almost zero-information in an economic sense. Market choices are being made when consumers are being segmented into very rigid, hard to leave, cultures like Apple and Google - on top of that Apple and partly google own much of the stores, they do all th…

By the way, as far as "grandma won't be sideloading":

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/apple-hits-back-facebook-revo...

Here's an example of Facebook encouraging people to sideload a developer-licensed application with enhanced permissions so they could bypass permissions and leech more data.

So this is not a theoretical problem, this is something that actually happens, and that Apple has had to push back on.

Post reply on HN