Hacker News Reader

Comment by ForHackernews | Hacker News Reader

> if desktop ARM becomes mainstream things could settle fairly quickly. It's less of a technical problem and more of a "why bother?" problem.

This is exactly right, but I fear the incentives have changed and we'll never again see something like the x86/IBM-compatible/Wintel world of "standard" inter-compatible systems.

As you say, it's a "why bother?" problem, and no manufacturer will want to bother: Apple has no interest in making it easy to run other OSes, Microsoft wants to sell you "Windows Surface" devices, not general-purpose computers, corporate buyers want a "secure" locked-down environment with a signed bootloader...

Are there any powerful stakeholders who benefit from interoperability?

View on HN

>Apple has no interest in making it easy to run other OSes

I'm not convinced that this is necessarily true. They advertised running Linux VMs during their presentation, they made a tool specifically for installing Windows on Macs and they even recently stated how Windows on ARM Macs is really up to Microsoft. If you could run Windows on an M1 Mac, it'd really turn it into a powerful and power-efficient "do-it-all" machine, since you could still boot into Windows and run that niche Windows software that you need from time to time.

Of course but obviously they don't and probably will never allow you to replace MacOS, rather just to run something else on top of it in one form or another.

Notably the PC standard meant things were interchangeable, not "interlayerable". You picked a CPU, you picked an OS, you did not have to emulate or virtualize whatever you wanted on top of what was imposed on you. Imagine that 30 years ago someone pitched a PC that only runs a specific OS and the only way to run anything else is on top of that like an app. You'd think "ridiculous".

Today having a device that runs as sealed monolith both HW and SW wise, and all you can do is run stuff on top of that without the ability to replace anything is considered a good sign. Tells you where we're going.

Untrue, Apple does permit you to replace your kernel on Apple Silicon macs. Hector Martin has a Patreon where you can sponsor and follow his work towards making Linux usable on these systems: https://www.patreon.com/marcan

That's great, let's wait and see when this actually happens and if it turns into a compelling alternative. I think Apple hit it out of the park with their ARM line so I'd love to use the hardware with an OS of my choosing, like I would historically on a standard PC.

Yeah - I'm backing the patreon and very excited for this work. I don't need it often, but when I do, being able to boot natively into Linux is tremendously useful.

Bootcamp is not virtualization, so your point is moot.

Friend, the comment I replied to referenced Linux in VMs, and my point is clear and was made in good faith: Today I cannot reasonably run any Apple device without the Apple base software.

Your answer is dismissive and misses the point because you nitpicked on one particular word I used that doesn't fulfill one particular and currently irrelevant scenario: Windows in Bootcamp. What about every other scenario?

Bootcamp doesn't run on ARM Macs so your point is moot.

That's not really because Apple hates allowing you to install Windows, but rather because you can't actually acquire a Windows for ARM license. Once again, Apple has stated that Bootcamp for Apple Silicon is "up to Microsoft". And ARM Macs are still just a minority of the computers that Apple sells. The rest have Bootcamp, which allows you to just turn your Mac into a Windows machine.

Saying that "Apple will never allow you to replace macOS" is just plain wrong when they've been allowing you to do that for the past 14 years.

You might as well argue how Bootcamp doesn't run on iPads.

> but rather because you can't actually acquire a Windows for ARM license

You'd still have to develop all the device drivers required for this custom SoC. After all, Linux doesn't need a license but without extensive documentation and support from Apple it's like saying you're free to challenge your boss openly, it's pedantically true, but it is impossibly impractical for most.

Unless Apple provides extensible documentation for 3rd party drivers to be developed for their SoCs it's just cheap talk from their side.

> You might as well argue how Bootcamp doesn't run on iPads.

This isn't much of a "gotcha" - I do think it's outrageous that Apple gets away with selling these gimped iOS devices that only run Apple-approved software.

Would consumers stand for this with any other devices? A stapler where you had to buy staples from the manufacturer? A car that only drives on manufacturer-approved roads? A dishwasher that will only wash approved plates?

Microsoft selling Windows to DELL, HP, ... they will not start writing their own operating system. And at that point the same effect will start like it did with Microsoft/Intel/computer manufacturer.

If Microsoft however succeed with their Surfaces like Apples does .. than maybe we are screwed. Luckily, they do not.

They do actually. Outside Apple heavens like US, Windows tablets and 2-1 laptops are the to go option, as Google keeps failing to move the Android ecosystem beyond phone apps on bigger screen.

I think OP was referring to Microsoft's hardware brand Surface, not OEM Windows installs.

Yes ;)

> Are there any powerful stakeholders who benefit from interoperability?

All those companies selling motherboards for gamers etc?

So firms that sell speciality hardware direct to consumers? Are they big players?

I'd definitely consider companies like ASUS, MSI, etc. to be big players.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com