[nixpulvis]

I wonder why we even bother trying to support these hardware vendors sometimes. I have been trying really hard to simply not deal with them for my own sanity. Are we not simply letting the leash out further for what we will accept and buy? Are we truly that powerless against the market forces which drive HW/OS sales?

[diragon]

Currently probably because M1 is absurdly better than the competition. They will certainly draw users away from Linux unless either this porting effort gets done, or unless other ARM options that support Linux better become available.

[p4bl0]

> They will certainly draw users away from Linux

And the beauty of non commercial software is that we don't actually have to care about that. If people choose performance increase over freedom, you can't really chose for them.

Now I'm not saying that we should not port free software to the M1. I'm saying that the good reason to do so is because the people porting it want to have it there, rather than thinking in term of user retention.

[AnIdiotOnTheNet]

> And the beauty of non commercial software is that we don't actually have to care about that.

If that's really true, then why are so many so intent on increasing Linux Desktop adoption? Popularity means more people working on it, more people making software for it, more hardware having drivers, etc.

[nixpulvis]

The problem, as I see it, is that "free software" becomes unfree when you have to pay to port it.

Back in the glory of more universal general computers this was perhaps a lesser spoken requirement of the system.

Today, it's clear to me that we are slipping back into chaos.

EDIT: Seems like FSF's "freedom to run" might fit the definitional benchmark for me. I'm not really sure how people are going to react to that though ;)

[alpaca128]

Free Software is not about getting stuff for free and never was. Free refers to freedom/liberty.

> Free software is software that gives you the user the freedom to share, study and modify it. We call this free software because the user is free.

https://www.fsf.org/about/what-is-free-software

[p4bl0]

> "free software" becomes unfree when you have to pay

Not the same meaning of "free". But anyway, for now, you have to pay Apple prices to have a computer with an M1 chip on it. If the price is a string requirement, one probably won't buy Apple hardware and rather get something that less expensive and is already well supported by free software :).

[karatinversion]

To quote fsf,

> Free software means that the users have the freedom to run, edit, contribute to, and share the software. Thus, free software is a matter of liberty, not price.

[nixpulvis]

"freedom to run"

[linguae]

The remarkable thing about Apple prices these days is just how affordable powerful M1 computers are. The entry-level Mac Mini costs $699 (https://www.apple.com/shop/buy-mac/mac-mini). In single-core CPU benchmarks the M1 chip has a Geekbench score of 1744 (https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/9460112), which is slightly higher than the Intel Core i9-11900F, which scored 1726 (https://browser.geekbench.com/processors/intel-core-i9-11900...) and has a recommended customer price of $422-$432 (https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/212254/...). (To be fair, in multi-core benchmarks the i9 outperforms the M1 by nearly 2000 GeekBench points, but the M1 is still comparable with good chips like the AMD Ryzen 9 5900HX) By the time you add a motherboard, RAM, storage, and graphics, a Core i9-11900F build would be more expensive than an entry-level Mac Mini. Also, the M1 chip has a TDP of just 15W, while the Core i9-11900F has a 65W TDP.

While it's unfortunate that Apple has kept many of the technical details of their M1 Macs secret, thus making it a gigantic effort to port Linux and other alternative operating systems to it, what has people so excited about the M1 is the performance-per-watt and performance-per-dollar ratios the chip provides.

[nixpulvis]

> Not the same meaning of "free". But anyway

Would you care to enlighten me please? Otherwise your comment is of no value.

[CogitoCogito]

“Free software” means software that respects users' freedom and community. Roughly, it means that the users have the freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. Thus, “free software” is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of “free” as in “free speech,” not as in “free beer”. We sometimes call it “libre software,” borrowing the French or Spanish word for “free” as in freedom, to show we do not mean the software is gratis.

You may have paid money to get copies of a free program, or you may have obtained copies at no charge. But regardless of how you got your copies, you always have the freedom to copy and change the software, even to sell copies.

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html

[p4bl0]

The meaning of "free" in "free software" is the one from "freedom" or "free speech". It is about liberty, not price. You can totally sell free software for example. And a lot of people are paid to develop free software (so the software itself is not free as in $0 even if it is so for end users).

I'm far from agreeing with everything the FSF says or does, but see https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html for more information.

[dncornholio]

There's basically only 2 meanings for free (not in jail, price of 0), so if it's not the one, it's the other. Don't think his comment wasn't of value to me.

[DonHopkins]

But the point is that Apple's software that runs on the M1 is absurdly better than the competition, especially on the M1, because both the macOS software and the M1 hardware were designed to work together hand-in-hand fast and efficiently.

So even if you could get all the hardware drivers working properly, Linux/Gnome still will lose out to macOS because that hardware simply wasn't designed for that software, and that software simply wasn't designed for that hardware, while macOS and M1 were both designed to work together.

But Gnome was originally designed to run on X-Windows, whose hardware model is a MicroVAX framebuffer on acid.

https://donhopkins.medium.com/the-x-windows-disaster-128d398...

The color situation is a total flying circus. The X approach to device independence is to treat everything like a MicroVAX framebuffer on acid. A truly portable X application is required to act like the persistent customer in Monty Python’s “Cheese Shop” sketch, or a grail seeker in “Monty Python and the Holy Grail.” Even the simplest applications must answer many difficult questions:

WHAT IS YOUR DISPLAY?

   display = XOpenDisplay("unix:0");

WHAT IS YOUR ROOT?

    root = RootWindow(display, DefaultScreen(display));

AND WHAT IS YOUR WINDOW?

    win = XCreateSimpleWindow(display, root, 0, 0, 256, 256, 1,
                              BlackPixel(
                                  display,
                                  DefaultScreen(display)),
                              WhitePixel(
                                  display,
                                  DefaultScreen(display)));

OH ALL RIGHT, YOU CAN GO ON.

    (the next client tries to connect to the server)

WHAT IS YOUR DISPLAY?

    display = XOpenDisplay("unix:0");

WHAT IS YOUR COLORMAP?

    cmap = DefaultColormap(display, DefaultScreen(display));

AND WHAT IS YOUR FAVORITE COLOR?

    favorite_color = 0; /* Black. */
    /* Whoops! No, I mean: */
    favorite_color = BlackPixel(display, DefaultScreen(display));
    /* AAAYYYYEEEEE!! */

    (client dumps core & falls into the chasm)

WHAT IS YOUR DISPLAY?

    display = XOpenDisplay("unix:0");

WHAT IS YOUR VISUAL?

    struct XVisualInfo vinfo;
    if (XMatchVisualInfo(display, DefaultScreen(display),
                         8, PseudoColor, &vinfo) != 0)
        visual = vinfo.visual;

AND WHAT IS THE NET SPEED VELOCITY OF AN XConfigureWindow REQUEST?

    /* Is that a SubstructureRedirectMask or a ResizeRedirectMask? */

WHAT??! HOW AM I SUPPOSED TO KNOW THAT? AAAAUUUGGGHHH!!!!

    (server dumps core & falls into the chasm)

[zamadatix]

The "it was all designed by Apple so can't be outperformed in parts" has got to be a trope at this point.

If that's the case why is Chrome able to put benchmark Safari on my M1?

Not to mention the OS shouldn't be the bottleneck for anything performance related in a desktop type system anyways.

[DonHopkins]

Where did you get that quote? It's certainly not what I wrote, or meant.

And what is a "put benchmark"? Why would you only benchmark a web browser's HTTP "PUT" method?

[zamadatix]

The quote is to describe the aforementioned integration trope, not sure it has a succinct name beyond that hence the long description in quotes. It first got really popular when it was note one of the iPhone A* processors added JavaScript specific rounding to much "that's how safari can be so great on this device release, it integrates straight to the hardware" only to find out from a safari dev it hadn't even gained that yet. Yes end to end integration is a huge boon to a consistent user experience but it doesn't change efficiency nearly as !uch as some like to think, certainly not more than can be gained from normal optimizations still available and it's certainly not the ultimate goalpost even for consistent experience just a great aid.

Put = out, please forgive mbile keyboard while on a plane :). I do like the level of creativity for an http put benchmark though!

[Octoth0rpe]

Because safari isn't purely optimized for speed. It's optimized for 'fast enough', but also low power usage. Chrome is _only_ optimized for speed (and thusly uses far more power), though it's my understanding that google is rethinking that balance somewhat.

[heavyset_go]

Recent Ryzen chips perform better than M1 chips.

[floatboth]

Not in most workloads, no. M1 is made on a better fab. Future chips might be better, provided the next process they use (rumors are, TSMC "6nm") is close enough to TSMC "5nm".

[johan_felisaz]

I'm curious, sources ?

[cr3ative]

Define "perform". Power efficiency? Raw processing speed? Both?

[h4x0r12345]

The M1 significantly outperforms Ryzen when measured by performance/watt and single-core performance

[jbverschoor]

It's a strategic move from Apple to allow other OSses. They could've gone the iOS route, requiring jailbreaking.

They know very well how they became so big. It was in the early 2000's, because they had the support of many developers.

[flomo]

Yes and no. Specifically, Mac was lifesupport marketshare until Intel. Bootcamping or VMing Windows was a huge selling point at the time. (But maybe in the long-run, it turned out that UNIX was more valuable after all.)

With apple silcon, Apple is dropping what was a huge feature -- Windows. Ability to run Linux distros on Mac hardware is like rounding error hacker stuff.

[rdsnsca]

Less than 5% of Mac users used bootcamp according to Apple.

[Wowfunhappy]

Now, but I expect it was a lot more common in the early days of the Intel transition.

[Razengan]

Or, or, or.. bear with me.. do we simply like what’s being offered and nothing about it turns us off to change our habits and try alternative products, all of which come with their own brand of bullshit anyway?

[Razengan]

* turns us off enough

[watermelon0]

For some people it's a nice challenge to tackle.

Additionally, M1 is currently best? platform when comparing performance with power usage, and (at least MBA) comes in a great form factor. AFAIK there is no comparable device that has decent support for Linux.

[distances]

Ryzen mobile is of course still faster in multi-core tasks, although with a higher power demand.

[phonon]

Actually not--a 5900HX is about 1400/7500 (ST/MT GB5)

An M1 is about 1700/7600.

So call that a tie for MT, and 20% faster in ST...with a chip using about a third the power.

[distances]

No, M1 is clearly slower in multi-core (to be fair, it has fewer threads). Not sure where you got your numbers from. 5900HX gets about 7800 in Geekbench 5, and the difference is much larger in some other multi-core tests. For example Cinebench gives 7800 for M1, 13800 for 5900HX.

E.g. https://nanoreview.net/en/cpu-compare/apple-m1-vs-amd-ryzen-...

[phonon]

It says in your link there is a 3% difference in "Geekbench 5 (Multi-Core)" between the two? I would say that is practically equivalent, particularly since 5900HX comes in several TDPs. (It says "54 Watt" at your link.)

I took my data from perusing the Geekbench DB for the latest submissions...

[distances]

Yeah I agree GB5 is roughly equivalent, others not so. Anyway this is just me being pedantic as so many people seem to think for whatever reason that M1 is the most powerful mobile chip while it certainly isn't. I do expect Apple's follow-up chips to take the multi-core lead too eventually.

[nixpulvis]

> For some people it's a nice challenge to tackle.

So is killing a tiger, but you don't see any stripes on my wall.

[bschwindHN]

Sure, getting Linux to run on hardware you purchased is equivalent to poaching. Very reasonable take.

[nixpulvis]

I guess I took the OS X 10.4 joke a bit too far huh?

[Y_Y]

Well sticking the skin on your wall is just tacky. I normally just wait until people ask about the clawmarks and then feign reluctance as I explain.