[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? ;-)

[rollcat]

> 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" [...]

You're attacking my phrasing, rather than the argument.

> even if it claims to be "less non-open" [sic] than something else.

Apple never claimed anything here. No aspect of how open/closed the platform is is a part of their marketing, or any other official statement (they have literally kept their lips sealed even as they added the raw image boot option). My statement about their level of openness is based on observation, and comparison with contemporary and historical platforms.

> At least we're now on the same page regarding the fact that Apple's platform isn't open in any way.

I don't think we are. The only thing we've established so far is that Apple's platform is not 100% open, which was already a part of my original statement - and which is why I keep asking, what is your actual point? My original statement also included the remark that openness is a spectrum - your argument seems to boil down to the claim that openness is binary.

So, what is your benchmark for an open platform then? IBM PC, where literally everything was being reverse engineered, from 1981 onward? NVidia, where the open source driver is still unusable, 20+ years in? Raspberry Pi, where you have to upload a binary blob to the GPU, so it can bootstrap the main CPU? Modern x86 systems that block third-party OS's from booting[1]? Some median Android handset, which won't unlock the bootloader without an exploit, and will be forever stuck on an ancient kernel? Intel & AMD CPUs, which all have a dedicated core that runs a full OS, that is outside of the user's control?

Can you name a single system, that has any kind of market adoption (say >0.01%, so things like MNT[2] don't count), that does not make significant compromises on openness?

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32023868 [2]: https://mntmn.com/

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

You're using sarcasm and rhetorical questions to make it seem like I am claiming something that I do not - this is very insincere. I have never made any claims that it's easy to port or run any OS to M1 Macs; only that it is still easier than on other, even more closed platforms (including even other Apple products, from which M1 is derived). Another observation: the Asahi project has made more progress towards developing a fully open GPU driver in 2 years than the similar effort for NVidia has done in 20.

Again, what is your benchmark?