![]() Why "should" they? All hardware manufacturers decide what software to write, and what platforms to support. > That is a lot of time and effort of someone doing something for free that the manufacturer should be paying them to do and assist with. They could have decided to actively cryptographically lock down the boot process to prohibit other OSes from running, but they didn't do that. The most likely explanation is that they just decided to design things in a particular way because they felt it would be best for their own purposes, and didn't really care to think about anything else. Sure, some things were harder, but I don't think we can ascribe a malicious motive to Apple. ![]() > but they at times actually intentionally impede their workĭo they, though? From what I've read of the Asahi project's progress, they didn't run into cases where Apple intentionally tried to make things harder on them. Apple's hardware is undocumented, certainly, but that's pretty common when it comes to Linux hardware support. I mean, I can't rewrite the BIOS in my Framework Laptop, nor can I make heads or tails of any of the binary firmware blobs Linux loads into the WiFi chipset, graphics chipset, etc. The hardware itself is more or less just as open (or closed) as most non-Apple hardware. The "closed source proprietary ecosystem" is macOS and its app store. This is a little bit of a weird statement, because these developers aren't doing that. > open source developers go so far to contribute to a closed source proprietary ecosystem I also just think your premise is a bit flawed: Many of the drivers in the Linux kernel for various bits of hardware only exist because someone adopted this attitude. ![]() "I like this hardware and I want to run Linux on/with it, so I'll figure it out myself" seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to do. Sure, they're not perfect (lack of upgradeability/repairability, etc.), but running Linux on them can be great, if the hardware support is there. And by all accounts, the ARM Macs are even nicer than the Intel Macs. I used to run Linux on Mac laptops (gave up around 2016 or so, tried again in 2018, gave up again shortly after), and I get the appeal: the hardware is really nice. But that's in the eye of the beholder, and at any rate, that's your prerogative, as this is theirs.Ģ. I'm sure there are some people who might look at what you do with your spare time and think you're "wasting" it sometimes. While you may think it's "bizarre", this use of their time has value to them, not only in the hopeful end result (fully-functional Linux on ARM Macs), but also in the satisfaction of the technical challenge, bragging rights, and general reputation. I try not to tell people what to do with their free time. I think that's not an unreasonable point, but, well:ġ. I could write a hardware-specific cpuidle driver in a day, but of course they'd reject it upstream.ĭoesn't seem like this is going to be fixed anytime soon. We haven't had time to start that long conversation formally yet. The current thinking is we need to make a new standard, either a new PSCI transport that does work on AS or something simpler/ad-hoc. Linux on AS truly runs on bare metal at the highest privilege, unlike the vast majority of other ARM64 platforms. Basically, PSCI assumes you have a "super-hypervisor" running the platform (TrustZone/E元 on most Androids, but also somewhat similar to SMM mode on Intel), which is something Apple very deliberately stripped out of their CPUs very quickly because they don't need it and their security model relies on better solutions. Sorry.ĪRM64 Linux does not want hardware-specific cpuidle drivers, instead relying on the PSCI firmware standard, but that standard is designed to rely on optional ARM features that Apple Silicon does not implement, so we can't implement it. It's a known issue blocked on bureaucracy/politics with the kernel, so you just have to wait.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |