Live data from Hacker News

Would you be willing to fund a Linux port to Apple Silicon?

twitter.com

271–280 of 548 posts

Re: Would you be willing to fund a Linux port to Apple Silicon?

#271

If I thought there was a good chance of having the work upstreamed so that a mainline Linux kernel would eventually work on these computers, maybe. In my experience, there are not many ARM SoCs that have mainline support, even some of the Raspberry Pi boards don't, and they're some of the most popular ARM SoCs used for Linux. A lot of these projects get to the stage where a forked kernel will run on the SoC, but then…

This would absolutely all be done with upstreamability in mind, and upstreamed as soon as is practical. All that horrible forked kernel stuff is the realm of companies with closed development teams who don't care and just want a product out the door. The PS4 Linux stuff I did was not upstreamed for lack of time/interest, but I absolutely considered it being decent enough to upstream when writing it. PS3 Linux running…

> All that horrible forked kernel stuff is the realm of companies with closed development teams who don't care and just want a product out the door.

Or people who gave upstreaming an honest try but got fed up. It's not the easiest project to contribute to.

Re: Would you be willing to fund a Linux port to Apple Silicon?

#272

No, I wouldn't, not even if I could print billions in a snap. I'd rather help funding the port to a 10 times slower but open platform, rather to a technically superior but proprietary close one whose owner would make it incompatible two seconds after they would smell competition from Linux in any of their core business fields. No thanks, I'll send my small quid to whomever appears to be really in favor of openness, n…

Lol they highlighted running Linux in the first announcement of the ISA switch , they see no threat in Linux at all. Their business model would need to change dramatically for that to happen. They’re a hardware company that makes the hardware more attractive with software, service and device integration. Their software restrictions are part of the value proposition, but anyone fully ejecting from that would be on the…

+1. The real problem is not software incompatibilities or restrictions, but simply the lack of any vendor support and documentation. For a Linux port to "fail" (in the sense of very low usability), Apple doesn't even have to do anything actively, staying unresponsive and unsupporting is sufficient. Without comprehensive documentation, the development will be a long struggle.

- First, having good hardware support even on x86_64, a known platform with vendor support, can be problematic.

Even on a standard laptop where Linux works just fine, it's still a struggle for the community to get all the peripherals working after a new laptop has been released. Usually new computers can take a year or two before everything is sorted out. For example, on my Lenovo tablet, it took a whole year before every driver has stabilized, yet the integrated audio still didn't work (even when two company employees were actively supporting it on Linux), and I had to take an USB soundcard on-the-go, a really frustrating experience. Eventually I found the problem in the source code, fixed it, and submitted it to LKML - happy end. But it's not the only problem I had, and not everyone is lucky to have an easy problem - the more non-standard the platform is, the more problematic it is, just ask Microsoft Surface Book users for confirmation.

- Second, power management is already a somewhat unsolvable problem on x86_64, again, it's a known platform, and often with vendor support.

It's increasingly difficult to do power saving in modern laptops with highly integrated SoC - a single component can prevent the entire system from entering a deeper power saving state. In the old days, CPU and graphics were basically everything, but nowadays there can be an endless number of traps - a SATA driver or an audio driver can be the culprit. And even when developers have gone through the trouble of supporting power saving in a device driver based on the existing documentation, it's often plagued with mysterious bugs that baffles everyone (the Window driver often includes nonstandard workarounds that is difficult to be discovered without familiarity with the hardware and systematic testing). And not to mention that many subsystems are poorly documented that prevents the implementation of power management. On many machines, it's already safe to say that nobody knows how power management really works, and nobody knows how to fix it.

- Third, reverse engineering the GPU driver is hard, GPU driver is still a disaster on Nvidia x86_64 and ARM SoCs.

In the past decade, it's well known that Nvidia had done a successful job to destroy Nouveau, the free and open source driver for Nvidia graphics, by simply not providing documentation and tech support. It took years of reverse engineering to get basic 3D rendering, and another few years for reclocking support. And the introduction of signed firmware for hardware initialization and control essentially rendered Nouveau unusable on the last few generations. The problem is GPU is not limited to complex hardware like Nvidia graphics, even the graphics on relatively simple ARM SoCs have this problem, documentation is nonexistent and reverse engineering is slow. The Mali GPU commonly found on ARM single board computers is still having problem on performance, stability and hardware support.

Even on an extremely popular platform, with known documentation (after requests from the community) and strong community support - the Raspberry Pi, it still takes 3 years or so before the 3D graphics driver, VC4, is developed into a usable state.

---

Porting Linux to Apple Silicon is a challenge that requires developers to accomplish a similar task, but under the conditions of (1) to a brand new platform, (2) with unknown, new and non-standard peripherals, including the GPU, (3) without adequate documentation. It's easy to make the kernel boot, but making it usable is the sum of all nightmares.

You'll find none of the peripherals works, and the community reverse engineering efforts will take years before getting basic functionality, and even then, the battery will only last for 2 hours and will forever be broken. Graphics acceleration will be nonexistent or just borderline usable. And only Apple knows the technical details, nobody can fix it.

Unless the circumstances change and indicate otherwise, I think the Apple Silicon port will be a serious waste of community time, talents, and resources. It's better to spend time on a platform where vendor support and documentation exists...

However, the conclusion assumes that a serious competitor of Apple Silicon will eventually emerge and more supportive to the community, but it won't necessarily happen. I'm somewhat afraid that biting the bullet and reverse engineering the Apple Silicon could be the only way to have a high-performance Linux desktop on ARM - I hope not.

Re: Would you be willing to fund a Linux port to Apple Silicon?

#273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You do know there is a version of Windows for ARM64 already, right? It was largely hampered by the speed of the available CPUs, but it does exist. What I’m really curious about is how the ISA for the M1 is different from the CPUs Windows for ARM already supports. And as others have mentioned — I think GPU support will be more difficult, but I don’t have any data to support that. But, it’s not like alternative (and ma…

You do know there is a version of Windows for ARM64 already, right? You do know that there's no software available for it, right? Without software, arm64 Windows is not a viable operating system for an arm64 laptop. ARM Windows is as relevant as MIPS Windows or Itanium Windows without the huge ecosystem of software you get on x86. And who goes bankrupt first to build this platform? Is it the laptops makers who lose m…

There is plenty of linux software that runs on arm64 though. Even if windows remains the dominant deaktop OS, there is certainly a niche for developers and other who would want to run linux on a high-performance arm64 laptop. And then there is chrome OS.

Re: Would you be willing to fund a Linux port to Apple Silicon?

#274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The main reason to run hackintosh as far as I know is to write software for macOS or iOS. I suspect a lot of Hackintoshes users do so because they like using macOS day-to-day, but don't see anything appealing in Apple's hardware lineup. I'm one of them.

What makes MacOS good?

Generally good design and user-centered design (but that's being eroded with every new release) along with attention to detail.

Small examples: you can scroll a window without having to click on it to make it active, applications don't refer to files using paths but file ids instead so you can generally move files around a disk while they are open without things breaking.

Re: Would you be willing to fund a Linux port to Apple Silicon?

#275
post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMO it's not an unreasonable notion to have. I don't think its out of the question that they would change course and lock it down. I'm not saying it's likely or probable, but I don't think it's an unreasonable concern. In any event, it annoys me that the parent commentator is being dismissed out of hand and downvoted for expressing a legitimate concern.

It's a tired, un-nuanced concern that doesn't indicate any understanding of why Apple favors lock-in. It's like an online political debate: it's possible to persuade someone, maybe, but you need a better argument than mean old Apple wants to take our toys away.

It's a tired, un-nuanced concern that doesn't indicate any understanding of why Apple favors lock-in.

Well, why do you think that is? As far as I can tell it's some combination of protecting users and protecting app store revenue, both of which apply equally well to macOS as iOS. The only difference is that the Mac app store isn't as established so they can't force everything to go through it today.

Re: Would you be willing to fund a Linux port to Apple Silicon?

#276

No, I wouldn't, not even if I could print billions in a snap. I'd rather help funding the port to a 10 times slower but open platform, rather to a technically superior but proprietary close one whose owner would make it incompatible two seconds after they would smell competition from Linux in any of their core business fields. No thanks, I'll send my small quid to whomever appears to be really in favor of openness, n…

> they would smell competition from Linux in any of their core business fields

I don’t think you or Apple or anyone else has to worry about that

Re: Would you be willing to fund a Linux port to Apple Silicon?

#277
post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Server chips, maybe - but we can already see with Azure that competitive x86 chips from AMD have killed Microsoft's plans to deploy arm64 on their cloud service. I have heard a theory that ARM Servers have a difficult time because there aren't really many developer machines that run ARM. With Apple changing that, there is a chance that the next round of ARM server chips will have better success.

That seems silly. Developer machines rarely have AVX-512 or multiple TB of ram too...

Various people have suggested to Intel that they made a mistake by not selling desktop/workstation chips with AVX-512.

Re: Would you be willing to fund a Linux port to Apple Silicon?

#278

No, because it is already a unix OS. I imagine this is unpopular in HN, but what matters to me is just running on a good solid unix. I don't really care if it is a unix or Linux. What I want is shell scripting, pipes, forks, make, python, awk, grep, find, du, df, etc... Most anything that doesn't come pre-installed can be built from source. This wasn't true in the early days of OS X, but now the only things I find th…

Whenever I use the CLI on a mac, I am frustrated by the absense of all the GNU extensions that aren't there when I use the core utilities, and that the version of bash is ancient.

I mean I still prefer it over windows, but it is not the same experience as linux.

Re: Would you be willing to fund a Linux port to Apple Silicon?

#279

No, I wouldn't, not even if I could print billions in a snap. I'd rather help funding the port to a 10 times slower but open platform, rather to a technically superior but proprietary close one whose owner would make it incompatible two seconds after they would smell competition from Linux in any of their core business fields. No thanks, I'll send my small quid to whomever appears to be really in favor of openness, n…

Lol they highlighted running Linux in the first announcement of the ISA switch , they see no threat in Linux at all. Their business model would need to change dramatically for that to happen. They’re a hardware company that makes the hardware more attractive with software, service and device integration. Their software restrictions are part of the value proposition, but anyone fully ejecting from that would be on the…

The phrase 'I seriously doubt' should have to be backed up by money.

Re: Would you be willing to fund a Linux port to Apple Silicon?

#280
post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Linux becoming attractive on their hardware would almost certainly be unsupported, but I seriously doubt it would be undermined. This. Apple doesn't even care about Hackintoshes, which are (theoretically) orders of magnitude more threatening to Apple's business model since they (theoretically) cannibalize Mac sales.

The main reason to run hackintosh as far as I know is to write software for macOS or iOS. Apple won’t encourage corporations to build hackintoshes but as long as it isn’t too easy to install macOS anywhere I don’t see how — on net — it hurts apple.

The main reason for me is that Apple hardware is (from my experience) unacceptably unreliable and their warranty service is infuriating.

Add to that a lack of expandability, customizability, (user) repairability and (hardware) compatibility.

Life is just a lot less miserable without having to deal with Apple hardware. PC components seem to be very reliable when you spend just middle-range prices and you can easily buy and swap out components when something does go wrong.

I generally go many months without having to reboot my Hackintosh, and I can't ever remember having a kernel panic after initial setup. Both of those things were not true with Apple hardware.

Post reply on HN