71–80 of 143 posts
Every time I see something like this, I'm a bit sad, that we live in a world where tablets (especially iPad M4) have comparable performance to most laptops, but we still cannot run a general purpose OS (macOS/Linux/Windows) on them. Tablets are surely capable of running VSCode, Docker, VMs, etc. locally, and from UX standpoint, VSCode is basically Chromium, so experience would be the same if these tools ran directly…
Every time I see something like this, I'm a bit sad, that we live in a world where tablets (especially iPad M4) have comparable performance to most laptops, but we still cannot run a general purpose OS (macOS/Linux/Windows) on them. Tablets are surely capable of running VSCode, Docker, VMs, etc. locally, and from UX standpoint, VSCode is basically Chromium, so experience would be the same if these tools ran directly…
Can't UTM allow you to do just that albeit in a VM?
Even if it’s possible, the point is that iPad OS really feels like it’s intentionally holding back the power user experience for the sake of being more accessible to new users in a way that e.g. macOS doesn’t.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can't UTM allow you to do just that albeit in a VM?
Not in the App Store, and I believe on recent iOS versions not even with reasonable performance (due to a lack of JIT and/or hardware virtualization support, I believe). Even if it’s possible, the point is that iPad OS really feels like it’s intentionally holding back the power user experience for the sake of being more accessible to new users in a way that e.g. macOS doesn’t.
Annoying I understand. But fairly easy to anyone motivated to get it.
As for the performance they say:
"The lack of hardware virtualization on Apple A-chips means that even for ARM code we must re-compile it with JIT. Therefore performance would never reach the levels possible with KVM. There is also no support for GPU virtualization so that means no DirectX or OpenGL. This makes most modern games non-playable."
I guess it would be at least good enough to run an IDE, git and have terminal access provided any serious compilation is done remotely and not locally. And might even be good enough to run some lightweight containers.
EDIT: seeing that on ios 14 devices it needs to be jailbroken, so I guess it is best used on "obsolete" models.
Every time I see something like this, I'm a bit sad, that we live in a world where tablets (especially iPad M4) have comparable performance to most laptops, but we still cannot run a general purpose OS (macOS/Linux/Windows) on them. Tablets are surely capable of running VSCode, Docker, VMs, etc. locally, and from UX standpoint, VSCode is basically Chromium, so experience would be the same if these tools ran directly…
It boggles my mind that Apple don't release an iPad that runs macOS. It would sell like hotcakes. And with the M series chips they have already developed the technology to have multiple securely segregated OS's on the same device (so they could have it run iPad OS too if they wanted to).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But you know these restrictions when you buy the device. Same with the Apple ecosystem. So why make it illegal?
Because it's an artificial limitation to make the company more money, at the expense of customer experience and the environment (yes, locked-down hardware is also a sustainability issue!). Ideally, companies would exist to serve the public and so such selfish anti-consumer behaviour would be illegal. Unfortunately, they don't and current law seems to affirm that.
That would not be "companies" in the common sense anymore, but rather something like the East German "Volkseigener Betrieb" or the Russian "design bureaus". Which is something worth considering probably, but then you'd need larger changes, not just some laws that prohibit companies artificial limitations like this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because it's an artificial limitation to make the company more money, at the expense of customer experience and the environment (yes, locked-down hardware is also a sustainability issue!). Ideally, companies would exist to serve the public and so such selfish anti-consumer behaviour would be illegal. Unfortunately, they don't and current law seems to affirm that.
I’d also like to be able to run anything on an iPad. But I know I can’t so I don’t buy it. I find this notion that companies should do what we want ridiculous. You know the features and capabilities upfront or you can at least and then you can decide to buy or not.
The thing is, we actually have a vote in this by buying or not buying their products. So apparently, too many people are content enough with what Apple (for example) is doing.
Every time I see something like this, I'm a bit sad, that we live in a world where tablets (especially iPad M4) have comparable performance to most laptops, but we still cannot run a general purpose OS (macOS/Linux/Windows) on them. Tablets are surely capable of running VSCode, Docker, VMs, etc. locally, and from UX standpoint, VSCode is basically Chromium, so experience would be the same if these tools ran directly…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But you know these restrictions when you buy the device. Same with the Apple ecosystem. So why make it illegal?
Because it's slowing killing the the environment for kids to learn. Parents give kids an iPad, they don't give them a notebook. Kid has hands tied for really exploring programming. I'd be willing to bet if the same restrictions were in place in the 80s and 90s that 30-50% of the people who are programmers today wouldn't be programmers because they'd never have gotten started.
That's a fair point. I think we need a law which makes it illegal for parents to give kids an iPad and not a notebook.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But you know these restrictions when you buy the device. Same with the Apple ecosystem. So why make it illegal?
Because we want to. Of course the political capital of bunch of nerds isn't enough to make it happen but while the reasoning is different, I can't buy a new car that I can register without seatbelts, so the concept of making things illegal to buy is not entirely foreign. Of course, those are for safety, but I also can't buy a car that won't do at least 55 for the freeway unless I want a golf cart, so suitability for…
Who is "we"? Apparently not enough people want this.
> I can't buy a new car that I can register without seatbelts, so the concept of making things illegal to buy is not entirely foreign.
That's a strawman argument. Not having cars without seatbelts has safety implications. A better analogy would be cars which don't allow you to replace the built-in car stereo for example.
> so maybe put a tax on all non-computer electronics, and a rebate for computers. All just to be able to run my own code on an ipad. Which, you can actually do with Pythonista.
Then maybe we should also have a tax for computers that run Python, because it's so energy inefficient. Only make the ones tax-free that only allow C++ and assembly language.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are many problems with the "just don't buy it" argument. Mainly, that often times, the alternatives have huge unrelated down-sides. Apple makes the best tablet hardware by a large margin, but it's totally locked down. If I want a good tablet, I have bo real alternatives.
So even though as a user you have alternatives, you don’t want to buy one of those alternatives so Apple should make exactly what you personally want?
And no, it's not that they should make what I want, it's that they should not prevent me from using their device in a way that I want.