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

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

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

491–500 of 548 posts

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

#491

Post by eyelidlessness »

wizzwizz4 wrote: post #339
eyelidlessness wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would services put them at odds with an open platform? (I’m pretty sure they use that open platform for many of their services)

Making it harder not to use their services permits them to profit thereby (e.g. via the Apple tax).

Why would an open platform running on their hardware impact service usage at all? Let’s be clear what an open platform on ARM Mac is: people (such as a lot of folks here) who already prefer an open platform and want M-series performance, not a significant proportion of the macOS user base developing a preference for Linux.

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

#492

Post by eyelidlessness »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #415
eyelidlessness wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s pretty easy to ballpark. Everything Apple does targets a whole package 25-30% margin. If the services aren’t generating that margin, the hardware is making it up. Last I heard the iPhone is on that margin target, as are all or nearly all macs. So it’s pretty reasonable to assume the services are pretty close in line.

> whole package margin > If the services aren’t generating that margin, the hardware is making it up. I really don't like that way of looking at profits. Going by that standard, if you sell a thousand dollar device with $260 in margin and no software, everything is great. But then if you add on $600 in software to increase your margin to $330, that's bad somehow?

Huh? I wasn’t making a value judgment at all, just observing Apple’s historical behavior. That is how they look at profit. And they move all sorts of revenue around to make certain price points more appealing. Mac mini gets cheaper at entry level, macOS is free. To the extent those are lower margin, they make it up in services or other hardware lines.

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

#493

Post by fsflover »

bzzzt wrote: post #479
fsflover wrote: post #464

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are spreading FUD. The phone can do almost everything, including 3D-games.

Fine, so you can port tuxracer to it. If you want to play an actual game people care about and think there are game companies building those for PureOS you're delusional.

Depending what you call "actual game", you can play some of them: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_HXQJkWjUQ.

Concerning "game companies", this is a typical problem of new hardware and is quite expected (in the beginning). The difference however is that you do not have to rewrite anything, just recompile for Debian ARM and make it fit the screen. Potentially thousands of games should run well after quick adjustments.

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

#494

Post by fsflover »

flyinglizard wrote: post #484
fsflover wrote: post #466

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://source.puri.sm/Librem5/community-wiki/-/wikis/Freque...

So the answer is a resounding “no”: >> Purism published the KiCAD schematics files for the DevKit, which was entirely designed with free software tools. However, Purism has not released the CAD files or the Gerber files for the Librem 5, in order to prevent the creation of clones. CEO Todd Weaver says that Purism needs to recover its development costs before releasing the Gerber files, which they are “thinking about…

Your "resounding no" is the very definition of FUD. In fact, it is more "yes" than "no". Name me any other company which publishes x-rays, schematics and promises to publish KiCAD files for their hardware.

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

#495

Post by iSnow »

unionpivo wrote: post #400
ampdepolymerase wrote: post #162

Most of the solutions in this thread are simply not viable. Stuff like the Pinebook and Raspberry Pi are several magnitudes away from Apple's M1 SoC. No amount of hackerish imitation will bridge that gap, the laws of physics are not kind to consumer product hardware hackers. It is very obvious that most of the people commenting here has never held a soldering iron, nor taken a single computer architecture class. The…

Ehh I think people are overestimating M1 impact. Sure its the best laptop/ipad(other pad) chip out there. And it (and it's next versions) will likely remain best for quite a while. But it's not that the rest of the chips out there turned into garbage. They are still very usable. Personally I have gone away from laptops back to desktops. Having desktop and a phone/tablet combination for me is better than just laptop o…

OSS for operating systems is unlikely to be fine: out of the four classes server, desktop, laptop, phone/tables, one is already fully locked down and with the M1, the laptop class also becomes less open and hackable.

Most people - unlike you - don't care that much about desktops, they either have laptops or tablets.

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

#496

Post by flyinglizard »

fsflover wrote: post #494
flyinglizard wrote: post #484

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So the answer is a resounding “no”: >> Purism published the KiCAD schematics files for the DevKit, which was entirely designed with free software tools. However, Purism has not released the CAD files or the Gerber files for the Librem 5, in order to prevent the creation of clones. CEO Todd Weaver says that Purism needs to recover its development costs before releasing the Gerber files, which they are “thinking about…

Your "resounding no" is the very definition of FUD. In fact, it is more "yes" than "no". Name me any other company which publishes x-rays, schematics and promises to publish KiCAD files for their hardware.

Not sure where the FUD is (that's the third time in this thread that you've thrown the "FUD" accusation, just saying). Purism does not publish manufacturing files, with a specific claim that they want to prevent their product from being copied. They say so themselves, in the link you provided.

There's very little you can do with electrical schematics alone. It's probably just enough for someone to claim a product is "open sourced" while keeping it proprietary for all intents and purposes.

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

#497

Post by fsflover »

flyinglizard wrote: post #496
fsflover wrote: post #494

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your "resounding no" is the very definition of FUD. In fact, it is more "yes" than "no". Name me any other company which publishes x-rays, schematics and promises to publish KiCAD files for their hardware.

Not sure where the FUD is (that's the third time in this thread that you've thrown the "FUD" accusation, just saying). Purism does not publish manufacturing files, with a specific claim that they want to prevent their product from being copied. They say so themselves, in the link you provided. There's very little you can do with electrical schematics alone. It's probably just enough for someone to claim a product is…

> (that's the third time in this thread that you've thrown the "FUD" accusation, just saying)

Yes, you are right. The reason is the wrong claims written in a convincing tone and (intentionally?) ignoring facts.

For example, here you ignore that this company is providing much more than any other company typically provides (schematics). Purism also promise manufacturing files and have a history of fulfilling their promises (even though sometimes with delays). I have no idea how you can say "resounding no" if you take into account the alternatives.

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

#498

Post by AtlasBarfed »

hachari wrote: post #303
AtlasBarfed wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the M1 is a close derivative architecture of high efficiency mobile scaled to desktop, would scaled up Android processors really be that far away from M1? I know Apple A-series had some edge over Snapdragons, but was the gap between Android processors that big? There are many hundred billion dollar companies motivated to close the gap. It may not be this year.

“I know Apple A-series had some edge over Snapdragons, but was the gap between Android processors that big?” Absolutely

Remember there is the 5nm advantage.

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

#499

Post by krageon »

cbozeman wrote: post #443
krageon wrote: post #420

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your argument against an open platform is "more open hardware is slower", as if that matters somehow. 99% of what you use in a day doesn't depend on a fast platform, and the remaining 1% is stuff that you should migrate away from or modern videogames (which arguably you should also move away from).

> and the remaining 1% is stuff that you should migrate away from or modern videogames (which arguably you should also move away from). Would you expound on this in greater detail? I am interested in your thoughts.

With some notable exceptions applications have become slower in a way that is just fundamentally unnecessary. Fifteen years ago you could do text editing, browsing the internet, chatting and possibly editing spreadsheets all in parallel on a machine that today would not be able to do anything with the same (but upgraded!) applications. This is not due to features that are "just more expensive" (though as said there are some notable exceptions, like probably decoding 4k video on youtube) but because the development process has migrated further and further away from any sort of performance concern as the platforms you could expect became faster.

That is not to say the computing landscape was fundamentally better fifteen years ago. I think it is almost the same. What has really improved is the general usability and stability of drivers (no more rebooting, random freezes and if you run linux your X server not working every other update), which is definitely something to be proud of. What has not improved is basically everything else and I'm really not sure why.

If I had to guess I would say it has something to do with managers the world over just not giving a shit about delivering something good, as long as it sells. As platforms have started having more headroom for bad software, "as long as it sells" has started to have a wider and wider performance profile. Landing us where we are today: with many of the same features, much less privacy and every other app packed with an entire browser "because it makes it easier to develop".

Even as recently as last year I had a more relaxed stance about this but I guess it has just been bothering me now that I have more time to think about the state of my work (and everyone else's).

Edit: I see now I responded to something slightly different than what was requested.

Modern (AAA) videogames should not be bought or played because they are produced by a sick and exploitative industry that really needs to die. Instead, we can prefer the indie games that work well with what they have: Generally a lower graphical budget that runs significantly better on hardware that is "out of date".

For office-type processing and messaging, there are generally application choices and tradeoffs that can be made for more performance instead of more eye candy. The average office worker (which I guess includes most people here) will not materially care that it doesn't look quite as good. Another upside is that as a company you don't need such an enormous budget for office hardware.

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

#500

Post by krageon »

robenkleene wrote: post #449
krageon wrote: post #420

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your argument against an open platform is "more open hardware is slower", as if that matters somehow. 99% of what you use in a day doesn't depend on a fast platform, and the remaining 1% is stuff that you should migrate away from or modern videogames (which arguably you should also move away from).

> the remaining 1% is stuff that you should migrate away from I'm not following. Compiling and media editing depend on a fast platform, are you really suggesting people should avoid doing those tasks?

Photoshop (i.e. "image editing") and video editing software have existed for a long time. They have not become better, just heavier. There are still alternatives for those applications that run just as well on slower hardware, though obviously your movie edits might have to render overnight instead of in three hours. Nobody will die if that happens.

Edit: You mentioned compiling, which is not an incredibly salient point. If you're not doing linux kernel development (and even then...) you do not need a fast machine for this. Even the linux kernel compiles within a few minutes (maybe 5? It has been a few months since I tried this) on a raspberry pi 3b. For more contained projects (e.g. something you might write in lisp, rust or go) it'll take somewhere between one to twenty seconds.

Post reply on HN