[jacquesm]

The reverse engineering work that went in to this is absolutely top notch, I've read some of the articles and can barely follow them, the leaps of intuition are so large they almost feel like parallel construction at times.

Here's to hoping they get it to work. And wouldn't it be nice if Apple just for once helped out and opened up their hardware.

[rollcat]

> And wouldn't it be nice if Apple just for once helped out and opened up their hardware.

Considering M1 is directly derived from the SoCs that run the iPhone & iPad, Apple already did a complete 180° from how locked down their mobile platforms are. All the escape hatches to run third-party OS's are easily opened, there were post-release changes to the bootloader & tooling to make booting third-party kernels easier, etc.

We don't get any official docs, but unfortunately it's not like Apple has good docs even for the stuff they do actively support...

[still_grokking]

> Considering M1 is directly derived from the SoCs that run the iPhone & iPad, Apple already did a complete 180° from how locked down their mobile platforms are.

That's why it's to easy to run any OS you like on Apple hardware, isn't it?

[rollcat]

What do you mean by "any OS you like"? Did any OS ever run on hardware it wasn't ported to? Or do you mean we're meant to drag IBM's 1981 ball and chain to our graves?

[still_grokking]

> What do you mean by "any OS you like"?

It means: Any OS I like.

What's so difficult to understand here? (I could offer to switch to German in case you have issues in understanding English).

Of course, one would need to port any particular OS first in case one wants to run it on some new hardware.

But porting any OS I like to Apple devices is as easy as doing that for any other open and properly documented hardware, right?

[rollcat]

> What's so difficult to understand here? (I could offer to switch to German in case you have issues in understanding English).

Please read the posting guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

> In Comments: Be kind. Don't be snarky. [...] Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. [...] Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.

> But porting any OS I like to Apple devices is as easy as doing that for any other open and properly documented hardware, right?

Apple's hardware is not open nor properly documented, nobody here is arguing that either of these is true. My original statement was: M1 Macs are more open than most of Apple's hardware, and Apple is not doing anything to discourage tinkering and porting - quite the opposite, they left the escape hatches open, and even made later changes[1] specifically to accommodate third-party OS's.

So again: what point are you trying to make? Non-open platform is non-open, but despite being less non-open than most other non-open platforms out there, it's somehow still worse, because...?

[1]: https://web.archive.org/web/20211217132913/https://twitter.c...

[still_grokking]

> Please read the posting guidelines

Yes my friend, you should do this once more. And than reconsider most carefully what you've actually written before.

> Non-open platform is non-open, but despite being less non-open than most other non-open platforms out there, it's somehow still worse, […]

Yes. :-)

Do you even realize how weird this statement is? A "non-open" platform (is this Apple's marketing speech for closed platform?) is in fact "non-open", even if it claims to be "less non-open" [sic] than something else. Very very true.

At least we're now on the same page regarding the fact that Apple's platform isn't open in any way. It's a closed ecosystem, hostile to anything that could threaten its gatekeeper (and in some parts monopoly) position around Apple's broader offerings.

Of course this makes it easy to run any OS you like on Apple hardware, right? ;-)

[Gigachad]

And they wrote the GPU driver in Rust. Really pushing the cutting edge tech on this project. Unbelievable work.

[fragmede]

I'm just grateful that Apple didn't totally lock down the bootloader on macOS devices, given the knowhow evident on iOS/iPadOS.

[Gigachad]

They actually went the other way and released some extra features that only serve to make alt OSs easier and do nothing for macOS.

[philistine]

That's inaccurate. The ability to run unsigned OSes while not affecting the safety of a signed OS is useful for beta versions of macOS past their due date, and most importantly, older versions of macOS that Apple no longer validate themselves.

[acdha]

Wouldn’t that be more work than releasing updated signatures? That’s an entire extra code path to maintain versus a routine and trivial operation.

Hector Marcan claims it’s policy, too:

https://web.archive.org/web/20220824111844/https://twitter.c...

http://web.archive.org/web/20211217111414/https://twitter.co...

[philistine]

Apple refuses to sign any OS they deem not up-to-date on iOS. I presume the same thing is coming to macOS soon, with the out that you will be able to install those older versions in the other OS code path.

[godzillabrennus]

Hoping for a project osx86 to happen again but for ARM releases of Windows no doubt.

[58028641]

https://github.com/amarioguy/applesiliconwindowsproject/blob...

[detrites]

Imagine a car, but the trunk is always locked, and possibly also filled with equipment that sends everything the owner does with the car to the manufacturer. The owner can't use the trunk, as the manufacturer has the key.

This would be an outrageous, almost impossible situation in car "ownership", surely resulting in class action - "I want to use my car's trunk!". But, in computers/phones it's begrudgingly accepted or sometimes even argued for.

I'm not grateful to the manufacturer that I've been graciously allowed to use all of the car I bought, and only after a team of amazing volunteer locksmiths worked day and night adapting the trunk so anyone can use it.

Sure, buy a different car, right? But this also happens to be the safest and easiest one available to drive. And this isn't because the trunk is locked. The owner could equally lock it themselves, just like the rest of the car.

Would be great to use it like any other car, and chuck that potential spyware I'm paying extra in gas to haul around with me. Not thankful that the manufacturer didn't put a stronger lock on it. Actually, I've contempt for them.

[wbond]

Yet most people end up liking that car and the balance of features, looks and price. Sure, they’d love to not pay for premium gas and have the extra trunk space, but in the end they’d much rather have a car that basically never gets stolen, gets updates for years, and does what they want 97% of the time.

Meanwhile, other people spend far more time maintaining and protecting their cars that can use cheaper gas and they have full access to. But they have to be much more vigilant about what neighborhoods they park in, and once two years comes around they can no longer get replacement parts, and if the lock has an issue, people can trivially steal their car.

Or maybe this is just a tortured analogy to start with. If you don’t like Apple, just buy something else.

[thebruce87m]

FYI, cars do transmit all sort of info. Here’s Tesla for example:

https://www.tesla.com/ownersmanual/model3/en_cn/GUID-2E8E5E0...

> Vehicle Telematics Model 3 is equipped with electronic modules that monitor and record data from various vehicle systems, including the motor, Autopilot components, Battery, braking and electrical systems. The electronic modules record information about various driving and vehicle conditions, including braking, acceleration, trip and other related information regarding your vehicle. These modules also record information about the vehicle’s features such as charging events and status, the enabling/disabling of various systems, diagnostic trouble codes, VIN, speed, direction and location. The data is stored by the vehicle and may be accessed, used and stored by Tesla service technicians during vehicle servicing or periodically transmitted to Tesla wirelessly through the vehicle’s telematics system.

[hexo]

Mine does not. As its old, real car without modern "necessities" that helps no one but manufacturer extracting money from ad companies.

[thebruce87m]

Just like the “Smart TV”, I fear your options will eventually be eroded until there is essentially no choice. On the upside, just like smart TVs now, if you buy an old car in the future then perhaps the manufacturer will have let the software rot sufficiently that the servers it reports to won’t be there any more.

[amelius]

That car is also so easy to drive that everybody and their grandmother uses it.

Meanwhile, real men/women drive sports cars they built themselves from scrap parts.

[still_grokking]

Wait for it. The direction is clear since years. So it's just a mater of time.

Apple knows that you need to be patient when boiling the frog.