>.. macOS only ever programs CS42L84 to operate at either 48 or 96 kHz, we could only add support for those two sample rates to the Linux driver ..
> However, CS42L42 supports all the other common sample rates, and while the register layout and programming sequence is different, the actual values programmed in for 48 and 96 kHz are the same across both chips. What would happen if we simply took the values for all other sample rates from the CS42L42 datasheet and added those to the CS42L84 driver? As it turns out, you get support for those sample rates!
> The patch to enable hardware support for 44.1, 88.2, 176.4 and 192 kHz sample rates on both the input and output of the headphone jack was submitted directly upstream, and has been merged for 7.1. We also backported this to Asahi kernel 6.19.9, allowing users to take advantage of this immediately.
Nice bit of chip sleuthing and reverse engineering from the Asahi team!
The following is actually the most surprising part to me.
> This is quite limiting, as it forces PipeWire to waste CPU cycles (and therefore battery life) on resampling audio streams that are not either 48 or 96 kHz.
So the Asahi team thinks that only supporting 48 or 96 kHz wastes battery life by forcing the software to resample audio streams. But why does Apple still do this? Presumably Apple has a very high commitment to save power and increase battery life.
Always possible that it's the standard commercial software company reason: They do know about it and have a P2 bug tracking it, but the team that maintains that code has 5000 other things to do, and it never gets fixed.
More likely it’s that 48 kHz is a more sensible default, since the majority of non-music digital audio is sampled at 48 kHz, almost anyone who cares about potential audio artifacts introduced by resampling is going to be using an external DAC, and (from an Apple-centric viewpoint) almost anyone concerned about the energy consumption of music playback on their MacBook is going to listen to music on their iPhone instead.
Maybe this is a little pedantic, but we're not talking about a default among the many other available options supported by the chip. We're talking about 48 or 96 kHz being intentionally (or unintentionally) made the only allowed options.
So either someone said "we must disallow the other options" or they didn't and it's a bug.
do we ever get apple engineers rolling thru here or on mastodon? wish stuff like this wasn't such a black box behind the scenes.
i think the only time ive ever run into an apple engineer was on mastodon related to gptk it was interesting to see they actually are quite tuned into what is possible on these devices and what that could mean for gaming. despite being a developer toolkit to help studios get a read on the work needed to optimize a game for a metal port, they were expressing that they were well aware such tools showed a lot of promise for getting games going on mac. not much of a gamer myself, but thought it was interesting to see a slice into engineering there & that they weren't as hostile as HN would believe them to be and broadly aligned with many of us. id be mega curious what apple engineers think about asahi.
> do we ever get apple engineers rolling thru here or on mastodon? wish stuff like this wasn't such a black box behind the scenes.
Very rarely. I believe because Apple has a culture of secrecy and contractually forbids employees from sharing details about their work in most circumstances (and actually enforces this).
I used to work there and can confirm this. They beat it into you during training when you’re first hired that anything you say can become viral news or be attributed as an official statement from Apple and they are strict about enforcement.
There’s also extreme secrecy both between teams on different projects and even between teams within the same project just working on different parts of it. At least that was my experience.
I did enjoy my time there, but it was a very unique/strange development culture.
I would not agree with your analogy. [0] Turns out the movie industry actually uses infrasound in horror movies. [1] It might also explain why people think old buildings are haunted. [2]
If Apple only focuses on audible sounds, their devices lack the ability to maximize the thrill of horror movies.
Practical reasons vanished ~20 years ago, about the time Microsoft dropped hardware audio acceleration and switched to software audio mixing. Resampling is ear transparent and eats less than 1% of one slowest possible CPU core.
Just like the mouse that has to be polled 100 times per second or display that is composited from all window buffers at least 60 times per second. It might really be negligible in the grand scheme of things and not worth optimizing for.
You cant imagine how much strain fast-moving mouse cursor put on display server of almost any OS if there a lot of windows open simultaneously. Also non-standard cursor sizes / formats are still such a mess everywhere since even in 2026 there are semi-hardware and software cursors...
This is presumably what Apple does. You kind of have to anyway or you have the stupid situation Linux used to have where only one app could play audio at a time.
> you have the stupid situation Linux used to have where only one app could play audio at a time
When was that? I think my first Linux distribution was Ubuntu 8.04 and fairly sure it shipped with PulseAudio which in mind always been able to play audio from multiple sources at the same time, maybe I misremember?
As I recall it was rarely enabled by default and was a pain to set up so in practice not really used.
The most common solution at the time was PulseAudio, which was so bad it usually was better to just use direct ALSA and live with the idiotic one-at-a-time limitation.
Thankfully Pipewire seems to actually work reliably so I guess that's at least one thing ticked off the Year of the Linux Desktop checklist.
It was the default on Gentoo long before Pulseaudio was the default anywhere. If other distros messed up their config I cannot say but the fixing that would have been a lot easier than moving to an entirely different system with an incompatible application interface.
Most distributions shipped ALSA preconfigured with dmix, which means multiple applications could play sound at the same time just fine.
Which is why the whole "we must use pulseaudio even if it's terrible and has awful standards that blast volume or multiple streams won't work!" was so weird… everybody who tried knew that just removing pulseaudio the multiple streams kept working :)
So only those who never applied the scientific method kept insisting that without PA it was not possible to do that.
I think PA allows for setting applications volumes and have a modular design. But it's kinda the poster child of overengineering (challenged by systemd now). Something like sndiod is more sensible for most desktop distro. People that need a more complex setup can bring in the big gun like pipewire.
I don't think the problem was over-engineering. I think the problem was that if you plugged in headphones it would instantly set the volume to 100% from whatever value it was before.
Plus of course, initially you had to regularly run killall -9 pulseaudio to fix the sound. All in a moment when ALSA with dmix worked just fine.
Sometimes I think fedora and ubuntu are trying to hinder linux as mainstream desktop.
Even back then, it could play more than one stream. You had to have a sound card or kernel drivers that supported it (and all non-obsolete ones did by the time pulse audio came out).
I still don’t know what purpose pulseaudio serves, other than adding latency and making stuff less reliable.
PipeWire is better, but it turns out you can just use OSS under freebsd these days, and everything just works, but with lower latency.
If you have some sort of potato sound card that can’t mix output channels in hardware, note that OSS added sw mixing by 2007 (with support for 16 channels by default).
Sure, sure. I remember a time when I didn't have a sound card that supported it and couldn't play multiple streams at a time; this is a thing that really happened. I did eventually go out and buy a soundcard to enable multiple streams.
Nonsense - HDA systems were overwhelmingly the majority of Linux systems at that point, and didn't have any hardware support for multiple streams. OSS with software mixing was a commercial product that wasn't upstream. ALSA had userspace mixing but it was very much not an out of the box experience, and didn't take advantage of hardware capabilities in the way Pulseaudio did to reduce wakeups and power consumption.
Even so, surely it would have been easier and better to just fix or replace dmix (in kernel, in the existing data path) than introduce a userspace daemon, break API compatibility, and so on.
It’s been 20 years and pulseaudio is still flaky / high latency / incomprehensible. Professional flows that care use stuff like jack.
TBH pipewire works much better than pulse, up to the point to replacing jack itself. But DMIX worked fine for non-professional user needs and with very low CPU usage. Yes, it was Jackd for the professional but Windows had ASIO drivers too.
Pipe might work better than pulse but it's still an overcomplicated mess compared to ALSA, which is itself an overcomplicated mess compared to OSS, which could have been easily made to support concurrent clients to /dev/dsp without all the API breakages and flaky deamons we had to suffer through.
PipeWire replaced Pulse like five years ago; who is using Pulse at this point to make statements like "20 years" meaningful? It isn't really an ongoing concern.
Doing audio mixing well is something that is, for a number of reasons, hard to do in kernel. And if you're still using pulseaudio, why? The rest of the world's moved to pipewire, which also provides a jack-compatible interface.
This is the era where I was the lead on Ubuntu laptop support, and I promise you that dmix was not a trivial option to make things work out of the box.
I always had some Knoppix live CD/DVD which had better defaults than Ubuntu itself on hardware autodetection and setup. I think they used kudzu from RH for a good while plus custom patches.
Bear in mind the Knoppix creator had a blind wife, up to the point to creating A.R.I.A.N.E, one of the best distros for the blind (and it was merged with main KNOPPIX, making the distro one of the best accesible ones out there). Thus, proper audio mixing was mandatory.
With the bundled installer you could install it to as a Debian Testing install in the spot. As I didn't have internet at home, I remember using Knoppix before Debian Sarge because it had a huge amount of things to play and test without worrying about odd hardware setups.
Some of the context here is that that at the time, Ubuntu was aiming to work on as close to 100% of existing PCs as possible to make it available to the largest number of users. Knoppix had a lot of great features and also was very opinionated, and that had an influence on the set of hardware it worked well on by default. I evaluated basically every decision made there in terms of whether Ubuntu should adopt the same ones, and there were several that were just not good choices in terms of supporting the widest set of hardware possible.
If you have two audio streams, you can't play them as is on the audio device, you have to mix them together. The same happens with analog speakers as you can't just add two signals together. I believe at one point with Alsa, when an application takes control of the audio device, no one else could play with it. Now Alsa comes with dmix (a digital mixer feature) enabled in its default configuration, so two applications may play how they want. And we have PulseAudio, Jack, and Pipewire on top of Alsa to add more features.
OpenBSD still present raw audio devices, but they have sndio which provides a more helpful interface for applications including resampling (not the best algorithms there, according to them).
While I absolutely love the technical write-up from the Asahi team, and being absolutely impressed by their accomplishment, to the risk of being an overly negative contrarian, I remain a bit skeptical.
I'm concerned that after all these years, it's still a separate project and not an effort sustained directly within the kernel mainline and mainstream distributions like Ubuntu, Debian or Fedora.
These kinds of reverse engineering projects are extremely challenging. With skills & field knowledge, it's "easy" to get to "80%" and have something useful for you and the most dedicated users. But reaching the "95%" required for a polished & general public ready experience needs nearly as much effort, often on tedious and time consuming tidbits.
I think there is also the added challenge that ARM macs are a moving target, and Apple has less than no desire to provide any kind of stability or support for Asahi Linux. Unlike the PC space where laptop manufacturers have to maintain broad compatibility over time, Apple will make future changes that are really awkward for Asahi and will not care one bit because they can do the compat work on their own software.
>I think there is also the added challenge that ARM macs are a moving target
Yes, but also no? Because I think a reasonable argument can be made that ARM Macs are like game consoles with a more rapid generation: yes there are changes between each generation, but then you've got millions of units which are good for a very long time that are all near identical. Apple definitely is not changing everything between gens at all, work they've done for M1 has been plenty useful since. And support stretches awhile. The final M3 generation chip only came out about a year ago (the M3 Ultra for the Mac Studio was March 2025).
So sure there's ongoing effort needed for newer systems, and that may require ongoing RE more then typical. I don't want to brush aside the effort there at all. But at the same time there doesn't seem to be the same long tail of hardware variations and dozens to hundreds of players doing their own little tweaks either. Aside from memory and storage, every single Mac of a given SoC is the same so each time one gets covered they all get covered and are a stable experience. It's definitely a different thing then developing for PCs, and I definitely wish there was and support serious legal backing for no rug pulls being allowed, ever. Hardware owners should always have access to the root of trust if they want it. But that aside, I don't think their efforts are wrong or somehow wasted just because each new generation might need some new work. That doesn't appear from the outside to be intractable, and fact is the pace of hardware change for computers has slowed and continues to slow. A system from many years ago can still be very good for most tasks... so long as the OS can still be updated and work. Apple themselves seem more then limiting factor there, whereas Linux shines in long term support.
The huge advantage of x86_64 isn't that it's a stable platform, but that the big hardware vendors maintain their own Linux driver. Nobody needs to reverse engineer how AMD GPUs work, you can just use AMD's driver. Nobody needs to reverse engineer how Intel power states work, just use Intel's pstate driver. Nobody needs to reverse engineer how Broadcom's WiFi driver works, Broadcom maintains their own Linux driver and contributes to the upstream brcm80211 driver. And commodity hardware that's not directly supported by the vendor typically has detailed data sheets, meaning that someone has to contribute a driver but no reverse engineering is needed.
Its more than that, its that x86 vendors know how to maintain hardware backwards compatibility, they don't throw out the entire USB subsystem every time a new phy/whatever shows up because there is a standardized mailbox interface sitting in front of the actual HW. Same with the core platform, which works out of the box using 25+ year old firmware standards that are flexible enough to support simple sensors and behaviors, like lid close notification on a laptop for example across multiple OS's. Even something as simple as the firmware interface for handing off a frame buffer to the OS isn't universally support on arm platforms because a significant fraction don't support uefi. Apple was an early uefi adopter, but whatever internal politics they have, means they tossed even that on the latest mac's.
From an end user perspective, I think the best thing the Asahi team could have done was solely focus on getting the M1 Air/Pro working 100% before moving onto other devices.
But that would probably result in burn out from the crazily talented dev team :P
Asahi focusing on M1 would also encourage secondary market sales of M1 laptops, which are already a primary competitor (see Apple marketing) to current Apple laptops. If Apple wanted to encourage Asahi Linux users to move from M1 or Qualcomm to M5/M6 Apple devices, they could improve device firmware compatibility with Linux, or contribute directly to mainline Linux.
Considering that M1 and M2 are almost the same architecturally isn't that exactly what they are doing? M3 are two new contributors who decided they wanted that.
I'm not really sure what it would mean for M1 air/pro to work better at this point to be honest, other than I guess power consumption during sleep but that's supposedly a super tricky problem that can't be "solved", it can just be incrementally improved through immense effort. But the main problems I have on my M1 Pro now are just the normal Linux laptop problems: bad trackpad palm rejection, input latency, inconsistent scroll speed between apps, high latency tap to click, somewhat janky fractional scaling (at least in GNOME). These aren't really problems for Asahi to fix, I feel.
On one hand, yes they're a moving target, on the other, they're a lot more uniform than X86 machines.
X86 can also be a moving target now; with Windows's driver autodiscovery mechanisms, manufacturers that don't care about Linux could still make people's life hell.
> Unlike the PC space where laptop manufacturers have to maintain broad compatibility over time
LOL
If anything Apple is infamous for keeping around hardware blocks for as long as they can. IIRC the serial port driver for everything Apple ARM dates back to the very first generations of iPods.
Of course Apple will remain a moving target, but they are orders of magnitude more stable than everyone else in the non-x86 universe.
Most people don't realize that the Asahi team ship features only once they work without quirks. For the set of supported hardware features, Asahi is much closer to a macOS experience than to an average x86 Linux laptop experience.
Meanwhile, Linux on my Lenovo X13s "works" but has tons of quirks: Boot fails 2 out of 3 times, the device hard-resets sometimes when waking up with a display connected, and the speakers are unusable due to lack of active overheat protection (and somehow this affects even external speakers). It technically works, but it's incredibly frustrating to use in practice.
If you plan to use Linux and don't need an ARM laptop, there's little reason to prefer a Qualcomm device over an x86 one currently. On the other hand, M1/M2 easily outperform a broad class of x86 laptops, and they have a Linux experience that's for many use cases close to on par with official vendor support.
Pretty rude to call this ex Apple Nuvia. I don't think any of those lawsuits by Apple or ARM have been won. Qualcomm declares this to be a new chip. But yes it has talent from those places. Still, let's not try to tip the scales of perception quite so indelicately?
I am curious what the boot situation is. It seems like Qualcomm actually has pretty good support for their cores. But since these PC systems sort of lack a bios, each one needing a hand built DeviceTree: it makes supporting them kind of a nightmare. Even a raspberry pi has a much more advanced and accommodating boot environment than these frustrating Qualcomm laptops. Alas. I don't know but I expect Asahi has to do similar hand tailoring. I am curious to know what the boot chain looks like! How much the system willingly helps vs how much hard to be bespoke hand coded system config! (Wish it wasn't like this, it's so bad)
Just several months after leaving Qualcomm, distinguished CPU and system architects Gerard Williams, John Bruno, and Ram Srinivasan, who are celebrated for their high-performance processors developed at Apple, Nuvia, and, more recently, Qualcomm, established a new CPU startup — Nuvacore — that promises no less than to 'rewrite the rules of silicon.'
Seems like a good thing, no? People getting paid well to skip around and improve products across the board. A virtuosos cycle, as opposed to the cynical cycle of ruining one project and parachuting to the next.
Without stirring the pot too much, I’m a bit out of the loop on what the above poster implied and you took slight to. Could you share a little more about this and why you feel what they said was rude?
There's nothing rude about it; the Nuvia CPU core is pretty much the entire selling point of the Snapdragon X Elite product family. Everything else on those chips is underwhelming. But the provenance of the CPU core is really irrelevant to the question of Linux support, which is gated by driver support for the rest of the SoC, which didn't come from Nuvia. So focusing on the Nuvia aspect is a bit of a red herring.
Qualcomm may be a tech company, but they behave more like a pack of lawyers (probably the best in the tech business at extracting money” double dipping”) they will never support Linux in any usable way, not without a huge ongoing fee/payola on their so called partners.
And in many ways that probably is true. But it's not uninform. There's a lot of places where Qualcomm is clearly working very hard to get upstream, to get mainline support. https://www.phoronix.com/search/Qualcomm
I was super impressed with their work offloading sound to a USB sound card, to let the CPU sleep more. Really wild subsystem to build. And they did it! Kept at it! Really cool stuff to have in the kernel.
They've hired some good people for GPU support, which is rad. I feel like Qualcomm is so so close to having a great system people can genuinely love. But there's always some missing pieces, it's always an end result that is far far far quirkier and more difficult than a PC would be. Some of the other comments in this thread give me some hope that there is a more normal boot chain here at least, that it's other troubles. But it's hard. And Qualcomm only has so much power over what their OEM partners actually build.
Qualcomm is the only name in wifi right now for OpenWRT like systems. MediaTek looks good, is present too, but supposedly their drivers are just a total garbage fire, buggy & crash tastic beyond words.
I think it's important we reassess our old biases. And give some credit where due. Qualcomm has an absolutely forsaken reputation & their lawyerliness is a thing of legend, forbidding as heck. But there are also a lot of signs that at least some of the company is tired of making chips that are utterly unsupportable, and has some real drive towards good open source support. Thank you, warriors of light there.
Really hoping we see some Linux running Snapdragon X2 Elite Extreme units in the next 12 months. Looks like an amazing system! Good job engineering the new cores ya'll!! Amazing performance.
It offers an A/B test of "similar" SoC performance and battery life (which users now expect from laptops), without a vertically integrated operating system that was also created by the company who designed the SoC.
> these PC systems sort of lack a bios, each one needing a hand built DeviceTree: it makes supporting them kind of a nightmare.
Modern PC ARM systems like Snapdragon Elite X use UEFI and ACPI. This is actually what makes them difficult, because they're trying to operate in a "new world" while most ARM SOC IP and peripheral drivers work in the "old world."
The issue with ARM has never _really_ been early boot; yes, it's arcane and a pain in the butt on some platforms, but it really only needs to be done once - once your DRAM is trained and running (this is usually the hardest part) and you can load and jump into a kernel, you're set. Hypervisor / security processor driven systems like Qualcomm (and for that matter, Intel and AMD) actually make this even easier at the expense of openness, because the vendor blob usually brought everything up for you already.
The issue has always been hardware discovery and mutable device configuration. When ARM devices were first supported by Linux, they were mostly embedded devices with one configuration, ever. So, they used devicetree, which is a fixed structure for each board, defined before boot and provided by the bootloader.
Because of this, most SOC / platform / IP soft-core drivers were built to work with fixed, proprietary configurations and usually only tested against a single platform to start.
On the other hand, x86 devices have been forced to work as highly mutable, arbitrary combinations of hardware (Plug n Play) with dynamic reconfiguration using ACPI since the start, so the drivers for x86 peripherals have always had to cope with a completely unpredictable environment.
What this means is that there's a ton of effort required to transition ARM _peripheral drivers_ from the "devicetree" world where drivers took fixed arbitrary, proprietary key=value parameters provided by a magic blob at boot to the ACPI world, where everything is dynamic, scripted, and abstract.
I'd actually argue that Pi have the most hacked tooling on top of the "old devicetree way," which means they're the most set on it. Pi peripherals are usually configured at pre-boot time using devicetree overlays and their drivers usually don't support any kind of probing/autodiscovery. As far as I know there's no real plan to change this (and maybe there doesn't have to be; it seems to work for them).
Anyway, this is all to say: I don't think the issue with either system is the "boot situation," it's the "peripheral configuration situation." In this sense, Asahi are actually in a fine situation to use devicetrees, which they do, because basically all of the SOC peripherals are proprietary and there are a fixed number of Apple devices to target and the only external interfaces are existing hot plug standards (USB/Thunderbolt/HDMI/DP). Qualcomm are smart to have started to try to use ACPI, because their SoCs could be hosted on boards with standard peripherals configured in thousands of different ways, like all PCs. But, they're playing on hard mode because most of the existing ARM peripheral drivers weren't made to support this model.
While it's true that early Linux ARM devices where embedded and generally only supported a single configuration, they didn't actually use devicetree.
Originally, embedded Linux ARM devices used a board file with a platform bus and hard-coded device metadata. The bootloader had to pass a machine id which told the kernel which hardware you were running on and which board file to use.
You can see remenants of this in the kernel still, though it's quickly being removed. I'm actually working on a hybrid kernel with the goal of bringing modern Linux support (on an lts branch) to old MSM7x300 devices, like the Evo 4G Shift I intent to use a tmux console/cyberdeck.
On another note, ACPI/UEFI doesn't always give you a clean abstract surface to work with either. ACPI is notorious for building in OS checks into it's compiled bytecode to the point that Linux often lies to it about what OS is running.
I remember that era (and it's still present on some other architectures) - devicetrees were at least a huge improvement over compile-time board config!
> ACPI/UEFI doesn't always give you a clean abstract surface to work with either.
That's putting it lightly. I think the best abstraction would probably land somewhere inside the big gap in the board config headers -> devicetree --------------> ACPI complexity continuum, but I'm not sure it's possible to do that at this point in the game as both sides are so entrenched.
> ACPI is notorious for building in OS checks into it's compiled bytecode to the point that Linux often lies
The problem with ACPI in this dimension is that there's a bidirectional errata game: the bytecode tries to work around the OS and the OS tries to work around the bytecode.
Unfortunately, there was never a real version standard for the Linux firmware interface early on (the _OSI("Linux") debacle), so the only testable versioned ACPI interface is Windows. This means that Linux is basically forced to become a Windows ACPI emulator. I think there are political reasons for this (obviously the 90s and 2000s were a bad time for Linux/Microsoft coexistence) but also just some decisions that look like big engineering mistakes in hindsight - the historic allergy of Linux maintainers to any kind of specified or versioned interface aimed at anything but user land definitely strikes again here.
I think that the versioning/errata issue and the native code trapdoor are the two biggest issues with ACPI (and admittedly both are large enough to drive a bus through); otherwise it's a kind of nasty thing but it fills in nicely for a lot of much nastier ideas and covers a really broad problem space reasonably well.
This actually is the case for a few other competing Apple Silicon support projects that came and went prior to Asahi. Assuming you have a way to load code into EL2[0], it's fairly easy to bring up the main CPU and USB, plug in a bunch of external peripherals before boot, and say you got Linux running on Apple chips. Only true in the most literal case.
In contrast, Asahi is specifically doing all the challenging RE work that typically gets passed over in favor of flashy headlines. If anyone can get to 95%, it's them.
[0] Prior to the M1 Mac, Apple did not allow anyone but themselves to load EL2 code. The ability to load other OSes on Apple Silicon Macs is, strangely enough, an allowed use-case. Prior to this we had to rely on once-in-a-decade bootrom security bugs.
Why would any group want to take on a project which could be instantly killed by an external for profit entity? For now Asahi is left alone by Apple but that could change in a single day and the entire project is dead. It doesn’t seem like a productive way to direct the limited energy that distribution foundations have on hand.
Apple could change the platform/firmware to break Asahi if they wanted to. They could lock down the hardware to make it nearly impossible to install another OS like they do with iphone.
No Mac in history has been locked down in the way you describe, and there's really no indication that Apple would start now. If they were ever going to, the ARM transition would've been the perfect time to do it, yet they invested engineering resources into adding support for booting non-Apple kernels into their bootloader.
They could of course release a new line of laptops or a firmware update tomorrow which locks down the bootloader and prevents booting non-Apple kernels. But so could Lenovo, Dell, HP, Samsung, Sony, or any other laptop vendor. Or Microsoft, Intel, AMD or Qualcomm could exert their influence, as owners of various parts of the ecosystem, to shift the PC landscape in that direction.
Most hardware vendors don’t make operating systems, so they are not incentivized to limit what software can run on the hardware.
For example, intel and AMD contribute a lot of code and engineering hours to open source projects because they WANT people to be able to run that software on their hardware.
What you're saying is true for phones too, yet phone manufacturers lock down their hardware to only allow it to run Google's operating system. The argument that "hardware manufacturers live by selling hardware and don't care what software customers run as long as it's on their hardware" clearly doesn't work.
But if you truly do believe that's a good argument, consider Microsoft's position. They wouldn't want you to run non-Windows operating systems and hold considerable power over the Windows PC ecosystem.
Sure, there is no legal issue with these contributions. The problem is why would a project like Debian spend a bunch of work stewarding the Asahi project when Apple can just make the project impossible to progress if they so desire? The Debian project already is strapped for resources to build their distribution and stewarding a possibly throw away project is probably not the best use of their time.
Your entire argument is based on a random hypothetical. Why should Debian steward any work if a meteor could collide with our planet and wipe out all life?
Are you making the argument that an extinction level meteor event is within the same realm as Apple deciding to lock down their hardware? It is called risk management, here is how it goes: The likelyhood that an earth ending meteor comes and destroys the earth is very very low and therefore Debian decides that they should still write software. On the other hand the likelyhood that Apple -- a for profit company -- locks down their laptop hardware like they do for iOS is much higher. Apple has a history of walled gardens and conceivably there could be profit motives to lock down the hardware. Given the risk, potential supporters of Asahi have to decide whether or not it is worth the risk of putting a bunch of time and money into the project.
> locks down their laptop hardware like they do for iOS is much higher.
Except you pulled this out of thin air. There's more evidence to support the earth will be wiped out by a meteor than their is evidence Apple will lock down their macOS hardware. Your entire argument is predicated on vibes.
> There's more evidence to support the earth will be wiped out by a meteor than their is evidence Apple will lock down their macOS hardware.
If you don’t think a for profit hardware company which also makes operating systems will never think about making it so only their software can run on their hardware, I don’t know what to say to you. They already do this with iphone/ios. It is possible they do with mac/osx. Im not saying it is guaranteed, I am saying it is possible. And I am also saying it is much more possible than a meteor wipes us out in my lifetime. If you disagree with that, fine.
I am pretty sure I will be vindicated by Asahi never being relevant.
They launched this platform with those restrictions, they didn't add them after the fact.
> I am saying it is possible
It's statistically less probable than a meteor wiping life on Earth - so my point stands that that Asahi team would be more concerned with a rogue orbital than it needs to be about Apple locking down the Mac ecosystem.
> I'm concerned that after all these years, it's still a separate project and not an effort sustained directly within the kernel mainline and mainstream distributions
What does this mean? Hardware support is rarely developed inside these organizations; what makes it seem like these groups would be a good home for this effort?
It makes sense to have a group of experts in a field (Apple hardware/firmware) contribute patches upstream, which is the exact system here. And Asahi have done an above and beyond job also maintaining their installation framework while carefully moving changes upstream as well.
Well, after a while, the effort of maintaining and improving M-series kernel support should be directly be done by kernel maintainers, not within a fork with periodic merges (maybe some Asahi folks should become kernel maintainers).
Doing so would enabled mainstream distributions to provide maintainable M-series builds, with all that entails in terms of stability, enabling choice, maintenance or security fixes.
The whole fork + dedicated distribution made sense at the start of the project since it provided a playground for quickly iterating and experimenting (which is a no-no to do directly in the mainline kernel or in a major distribution).
But Asahi is still the only Linux on Silicon option after all these years, which is a bit worrisome. Asahi should have been a cool but temporary initiative.
At some point, the project will lose momentum and for its accomplishments to last, it should be merged into the general effort, i.e. drivers maintained directly in the Linux kernel, and the userland stuff made to be easily packaged and shipped by mainstream distributions.
Of all of the reverse engineering related Linux efforts (and most corporate Linux efforts), Asahi have been the most methodical and relentless about upstreaming changes into the kernel and all of their upstream intermediaries (freedesktop/Mesa etc.), specifically so it's maintained, even at the detriment of the project velocity and contributor health.
Asahi is explicitly not supposed to be a fork + dedicated distribution long term and over time, the delta between Fedora Asahi Remix and Fedora has grown smaller and smaller.
> Asahi is still the only Linux on Silicon option
What do you mean? There are non-Fedora Remix distributions which incorporate the "edge" Asahi changes, like https://ubuntuasahi.org . And again, as more and more gets mainlined, it becomes increasingly plausible that many distributions will be able to support Apple Silicon "out of the box" without much special consideration.
I would have been happy if all that happened like 3 years ago.
Now, it's 5 years in, the Asahi effort is losing momentum. Core developers are going on to do other things, significant chunks (3922 commits) are still not merged upstream and no major distribution has an official build.
Sorry, but in my opinion, the project is at risk of becoming a dead and unmaintained branch.
Don't get me wrong, the Asahi team did an incredible job on this bloody difficult endeavor, but now is time to properly merge it and not let it go to waste.
It is a dying quail effort doomed from the start if those three ex Apple engineers could get a license from Arm to design chips it is still baffling why no one else across the whole wide world didn’t follow in their footsteps. There is a Linux market.
I’m just shocked that it has not happened. With all the money flying around for AI data-centers you would think that this would be a more worthwhile effort?
Where is the European effort in this area? I would think it would be a natural for something to come out of the EU in this area.
I feel like more money would not have helped that much. Maybe it would have enabled a few of the devs to work on it full time, but I doubt it would have brought more people into the project.
I would indeed love the EU to step in but not in the way you are probably thinking.
I would rather see such effort being made unnecessary through a law forcing the manufacturers to provide enough information/specification or even code for alternative/after-market OSes to be viable on the devices they produced.
And also, if possible, mandate a degree of standardization (looking at you Android phones and ARM SBCs) enabling commonality of efforts when supporting a device class.
The way mainline kernel development happens is that people work in their own fork and then send patches upstream, just like what Asahi is doing. The only thing that makes Asahi special is that there's so much weird bespoke hardware which requires special drivers. But nobody develops directly against Linus's tree.
What everyone is missing is any org who pays Ubuntu or RedHat for support is going to buy officially supported hardware from Lenovo, Dell, Framework or etc. Asahi is a cool project, but there's zero money in it.
as someone who has had several official asahi fedora remix updates break the boot up of a m1 mac mini, this is it. it’s just too damn risky. i’ve had it happen so frequently that i’m genuinely at a point where im considering retiring the machine for something more stable and less likely to break during an update and it’s not even like i used it for a GUI, it’s a headless machine.
i would genuinely advise anyone thinking about seriously using asahi to consider another machine for uptime and stability
That's the amazing thing about Linux. It's free and open source and not beholden to shareholders and having to have a fully fleshed out project that they can make money on.
I have an M1 Macbook Air with Asahi running as the default OS. I'm very satisfied and happy with it, even though there's some things that could be better (eg. The battery draining 1%/hour while it's sleeping). I would much rather have Asahi as it is than not have it because it's "Not 100% feature complete". I don't really care that it's not polished enough for "general audience
What is disappointing? Is that a three ex Apple engineers could get a license from Arm and design chips there’s got to be talent in Europe to do that and to also follow up and do something with Linux as a OS. It just baffles me why all this effort is spent trying to be a parasite on someone else’s chip the talent is there in Europe to go the full distance an offer something that isn’t dependent upon someone else?
I am rooting for someone to do something from the ground up in Europe. Maybe it’s gonna take someone that’s still in junior high, high school, or college who doesn’t know any better and is open towards breaking out of the boundaries.
I really hope this project continues to gain momentum. Apple Hardware + Linux is the least fscked OS running on the best hardware. MacOS continues to be a tire fire with endless bugs and churn between versions.
You should give Framework a try. It's been a flawless experience with Fedora. And with the upcoming Framework 13 Pro, battery life and trackpad are expected to be on par (or in the case of battery, even better than macos)
The only way to get the battery life Framework advertised is on Windows' 'Ultra Efficiency' mode which cuts CPU performance by 25-50%, lowers brightness by 30% and deprioritizes everything in the background to such an extreme that responsiveness of those is measured in seconds.
It is not comparable at all to M-series or Snapdragon laptops happily chugging along at full capability and getting (compared to AMD / Intel) stellar battery life.
They have a new type of core on these they refer to as a "low-power efficiency core", which is probably what is enabling these "feats", but as one of the parents to this comment points out we're comparing Windows configured in "Ultra Efficiency" mode to Apple Silicon MacBooks at most configured in Low Power mode...
Anecdotally, comparing to recent (but still older than these) generations of Intel chips I can run my M2 Max MacBook Pro with 78% battery health for longer (without any special considerations) than colleagues running their Windows Intel laptops in Power Saver mode, while performing similar tasks.
The new model is Intel or amd unless I missed something. They said in the video the battery life was entirely from video playback, which can be run on efficiency mode
My apologies, I don't know where I got the ARM architecture part from. I really want one of those machines, but I guess if they can't approach MacBook battery life yet I'm stuck on MacOS for now.
I think they said 22 hours of video playback in the video. If it even gets half of that for normal usage I'd be sold, the only thing stopping me giving it a shot is they are currently more expensive than the MBP and I'm not sure if they are worth it until the first reviews come in
When I play Bitburner, if I want to run it in the background, I have to run the game on Firefox or chrome. It’s a shame because safari actually gives best performance by quite a large margin.
The new Framework 13 Pro is undeniably really nice and a huge step up from the earlier Framework laptops. But the sad reality is that x86 processors are falling behind in performance. The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H is a whopping 35% slower than the M5 Pro (15 CPU 16 GPU) in both single core and multicore benchmarks, while the Framework 13 Pro with the 358H costs about the same as the Macbook Pro 14 with the M5 Pro ($2200 each).
Of course, currently Asahi only supports up to M2, so if you really want Linux, the Panther Lake should still outperform most of the 4 year old M2 devices. It remains to be seen which of the following can come sooner:
* new faster chips come out that support Linux
* Asahi finally supports M5
Right now it seems that the former is more likely to be true. But we shall see.
> But the sad reality is that x86 processors are falling behind in performance. The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H is a whopping 35% slower than the M5 Pro
35% is the generational difference between the M4 pro to the M5 pro¹. Don't drink Apple marketing koolaid: this has less to do with x86 falling behind than it has to do with Apple using their stash of gold to outbid the intel/AMD competition out of the latest TSMC capacity.
An M4 Pro 12c gets 32731 out of TSMC's 2nm-E².
An AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 gets 35093 out of TSMC's 4nm³.
The true unsung hero of the "Apple M miracle" is TSMC, not ARM, and Apple mostly in the sense that it has the deepest pockets.
With the first M chips, anyone who could afford to wait 18-24 months was pretty much where Apple was at. This decreased to 12-18 months in the last couple years. Panther lake signifies that it could further decrease to 9-12 months.
I really want this to be true but for me its not close. Maybe its better on the new 13 but its still night and day between my mac book and my FW 16 that's about a year old. My macbook works for days without a charge. My FW last maybe 6-8 hours on battery.
Don't get me wrong. I do really enjoy my FW but the mac hardware is still number one for me. I'd really love is an ARM based FW. Though if I could wave a magic wand it would be mac hardware running pure linux with no caveats. I really love seeing what Asahi is building
I've run all 3 major OSes before. MacOS by far has the least bugs and kinda just works.
My variosu Linux adventures have always resulted in doing random patches for audio or screen incompatibility.
My windows days were plagued with battery issues.
I feel like most Linux ricers wishs for a MacOS-like experience, except with more customisation. (Which is entirely possible now with the ricing on Mac)
> My variosu Linux adventures have always resulted in doing random patches for audio or screen incompatibility.
This is the kind of dated argument that really makes me dismiss most of the critics. I was running xubuntu as my main desktop since 2010 at least, switched to Debian + nix + XFCE in 2022 and switched to full-on nixOS in 2024. I never had issues with audio then and had to go out of my way to "break" audio on NixOS when I wanted to try pipewire instead of pulse.
> feel like most Linux ricers wises for a MacOS-like experience
I've put together a Hackintosh once, tried for a few weeks as the daily driver. Aside from being able to use tools that dealt with real-time audio processing, there was nothing else I wanted to copy or bring to my Linux system. It cemented my opinion that most software developers that keep touting the "superiority of MacOS" never gave a fair shot at Linux on decent hardware and were just rationalizing their prior choice.
Earlier this year I built a new desktop and installed my normal Linux distro and the screen wouldn’t work after login. I worked on it for a day, still couldn’t get any desktop except a terminal.Tried a different distro, it booted but no matter what resolution or refresh rate, the display showed severe artifacts when scrolling. Tried to fix it for a few days, gave up.
I am not a Linux novice, I have been using every major OS for decades at this point, but I’ll be damned if I didn’t install Windows, decrapify it, and everything just worked. You can say I should have done more research on hardware compatibility or whatever, but I didn’t have to for Windows.
And I like how you complain most devs never give Linux a fair shot on decent hardware right after describing that you MacOS experience is a hackintosh. That makes a lot of sense.
> And I like how you complain most devs never give Linux a fair shot on decent hardware right after describing that you MacOS experience is a hackintosh.
I'm not saying that I was expecting to run a Hackintosh and suddenly get the advantages of Apple hardware. I am doing a pure software-to-software comparison.
There was no application in the MacOS desktop that made me feel like I was missing out on something. Of all the tools that I am used to use - emacs + developer tools, email clients, messaging clients, media players, media managers, browsers, the occasional office productivity - none of the MacOS counterparts had any significant advantage over what I have in a Linux desktop.
> I am doing a pure software-to-software comparison.
I would argue this is impossible at this point. Most of the benefits of the entire Apple ecosystem are about integration - Macbook Pros are the fastest machines with the best battery life because of the great hardware but also the software integration.
> There was no application in the MacOS desktop that made me feel like I was missing out on something. Of all the tools that I am used to use - emacs + developer tools, email clients, messaging clients, media players, media managers, browsers, the occasional office productivity - none of the MacOS counterparts had any significant advantage over what I have in a Linux desktop.
This isn't really comparing OSes is it? You're comparing software that runs on the OS. Every tool I have on my linux machines I have an equivalent tool for on Mac, or I use the same tool, but the Macbook with MacOS is a workhorse that I can trust to "just work."
I don't think desktop Linux is bad, not by any means, and there are reasons I still go to it first on my personal machines until something forces me to make a different decision, but I also get tired of Linux users telling all of us that our experiences are old and all of these issues are fixed when they're just not, even if that isn't Linux' or the distro's fault.
If you are willing to give the advantage to MacOS due to the integration with the hardware, then you should only judge Linux when provided on hardware from Linux-centric vendors like system76, Tuxedo, Starlite and Framework.
I understand the point you are trying to make, but I disagree with it. MacOS doesn’t claim to work on other hardware, Linux does.
If System76 said PopOS only works on their hardware, it would be fair to only evaluate it on their hardware. When SteamOS only claimed to work on Steam Decks, the only good evaluation way to evaluate it was on Steam Decks.
> MacOS doesn’t claim to work on other hardware, Linux does.
Who exactly is "Linux", and what specifically is the claim? It looks to me like you don't want to lose the argument on these grounds, but maybe you could still have a nice laptop with Linux on it that just works.
> Who exactly is "Linux", and what specifically is the claim?
Linux distributions have a set of claims for what hardware they work with, usually as minimum system requirements. Since they are the minimum system requirements the expectation should, within reason, exist that the OS will work if you meet or exceed those requirements.
I say "within reason" because no OS can promise that, minimum is not a forward looking statement and the newest hardware is often the hardest to support.
> It looks to me like you don't want to lose the argument on these grounds
Agreed, because I didn't make any claims that this direction of argument negates. Linux has a harder task supporting a broader array of hardware, that doesn't mean that every argument should compare it to MacOS only on golden/chosen hardware.
If you build a distribution that only claims it works on specific hardware, like SteamOS did, then I agree that's a valid comparison.
> but maybe you could still have a nice laptop with Linux on it that just works.
> MacOS doesn’t claim to work on other hardware, Linux does.
It's the inverse. You claim that Apple "just works" for you and that Linux doesn't. I am saying that if you want to lend credibility to your argument, you need to use hardware that has a certifying vendor behind it.
> MacOS doesn’t claim to work on other hardware, Linux does.
"Linux" isn't even an operating system. There is no entity in the world who claims "bring any Linux distro at all to any random assortment of hardware you happen to already own, it'll be great and we'll commercially support it!".
I have installed different Linux distros in 4-5 devices in the last year, including a laptop with an Nvidia GPU and a random NUC off Aliexpress. In all cases everything worked out of the box after a fresh installation--and as far as I remember the situation was the same ~10 years ago, when I first started using it. There are hiccups here and there, but nothing I cannot live with. I do tech support for my girlfriend'd mac, and there are just as many small issues there.
All this wall of texts to say that, respectfully, when you write
>Earlier this year I built a new desktop and installed my normal Linux distro and the screen wouldn’t work after login
the issue might simply be that you are doing something very wrong and/or not following the proper instructions for whatever distro you are using.
But I've had multiple Lenovo laptops not work with Ubuntun or nixOS in multiple situations.
Any new yoga variants just always had trouble.
E.g. my yoga slim 7i had a keyboard issue in Ubuntu such that for the first minute, I can't use my keyboard. Had to change boot configbto use "dumb keyboard" or something
The yoga also had speaker issues in nixos as the drivers haven't been mainlined yet. It was onenof those 6 speaker (2 tweeter) setups. I had to download a random driver and chuck it in my nix config to get the subwoofers working.
I gave up after mic issues in multiple zoom calls or gmeet calls.
You can say it's all skills issue, but Mac worked first try.
Laptops notoriously have rare hardware with poor or non-existent drivers. For laptops, you do need to do research with Linux to make sure things outside of the CPU/GPU work.
And, of course macs work first try. Apple makes both the hardware and software, if it didn't work it would be extremely impressive. The fact it's working is expected, not exceptional or noteworthy.
> I have installed different Linux distros in 4-5 devices in the last year, including a laptop with an Nvidia GPU and a random NUC off Aliexpress. In all cases everything worked out of the box after a fresh installation
How interesting! This mirrors my experience with some of my devices, and not with some of my others.
> All this wall of texts to say that, respectfully, when you write >Earlier this year I built a new desktop and installed my normal Linux distro and the screen wouldn’t work after login the issue might simply be that you are doing something very wrong and/or not following the proper instructions for whatever distro you are using.
Ahh yes, the complicated instructions of writing the ISO to a thumb drive, running the installer, and trying to login after the installation is complete.
My sin was using a current gen nvidia GPU (a 5080) and a 4K monitor with high refresh rates. This unprecedented combo fails to make the transition from SDDM to Plasma Wayland with the latest (at the time) nvidia drivers baked into the distros I tried. Fortunately, I wasn't alone in this issue based on the forum posts across a couple of distros, so I can be confident that at least some others failed to hold it right as well.
Yes, using an Nvidia GPU is absolutely failing to hold it right. Nvidia has shit support on Linux and they do it intentionally, everybody knows that.
You can blame Linux all you want but there's nothing anybody can do except Nvidia. The whole thing is locked down, no distro or developer on Earth can save Nvidia users.
I can easily tell you a story of the same with the two OSs reversed. It's no longer 2016, pretty much every hardware worth their salt has good, or better Linux support, with the possible exception of some random RGB led not being controllable out of the box (though usually it's not out of the box either on windows). Like outside of desktop, Linux is the most prevalent operating system and it's not even close.
This wasn’t 2016, it was this year, and we are talking about desktop OSes (given the comparison to MacOS). If I wanted to run it as a server without a desktop environment, it would have been fine.
I don’t understand all the folks who crawl out of the woodworks as Acolytes of the Holy Linux Empire every time this topic comes up. Linux is a good desktop OS these days, it is my default, but I don’t have any problems acknowledging its issues and moving to another OS if it can’t meet my needs or if I have hardware/software that it has issues with.
This conversation started because someone said "I wish we could get a LInux system running on an Apple hardware, that would be the best of both worlds", and then the first response is to make a defense of MacOS, implying that MacOS would be the superior choice even if the Linux integration with Apple hardware was leveled.
What I am refuting is basically the idea that MacOS provides a better "experience" than a modern LInux Desktop installed on any reasonably conventional hardware.
I don't refute that are limitations on Linux. I am not saying that it will run everywhere flawlessly. But I am saying that the average college student, the average "web developer" and the average "elderly folk with basic computing needs" can have a good desktop experience without being forced to pay the Apple tax.
I can only speak from personal experience.
But I've had multiple Lenovo laptops not work with Ubuntun or nixOS in multiple situations.
Any new yoga variants just always had trouble.
E.g. my yoga slim 7i had a keyboard issue in Ubuntu such that for the first minute, I can't use my keyboard. Had to change boot configbto use "dumb keyboard" or something
The yoga also had speaker issues in nixos as the drivers haven't been mainlined yet. It was onenof those 6 speaker (2 tweeter) setups. I had to download a random driver and chuck it in my nix config to get the subwoofers working.
I gave up after mic issues in multiple zoom calls or gmeet calls.
You can say it's all skills issue, but Mac worked first try.
Not giving Linux a fair shot is not something I'd categorise myself doing given how much I riced my dell xps back in the day.
>This is the kind of dated argument that really makes me dismiss most of the critics. I was running xubuntu as my main desktop since 2010 at least, switched to Debian + nix + XFCE in 2022 and switched to full-on nixOS in 2024. I never had issues with audio then and had to go out of my way to "break" audio on NixOS when I wanted to try pipewire instead of pulse.
Did you ever do any DAW ? Did you have to use is jackd ?
Stuff like streaming games from my desktop in a non native resolution is a no-go with Wayland. I can't do HDMI 4k/120 with HDR/VRR like I can on windows (I know it's HDMI fault, but that doesn't change the fact it doesn't work).
Oh and I've given up on using Linux for productivity a year ago - one can take only so many full browser crashes for simple stuff like desktop sharing, camera/mic stopping mid call.
I'm running linux on my desktop with about as vanilla hardware as you can imagine - the amount of compromises/stuff that just doesn't work is quite annoying.
It's just nowhere near the level of reliability of MacOS - that's why I use my air for productivity and I SSH into the workstation to do actual work in VMs (with all the recent supply chain compromises no way in hell I'm ever doing dev work outside of a sandbox environment).
I've never used a device that claims first party linux support so maybe it's better.
But honestly I'm not a fan of linux desktop in general - flatpack is nice in theory but comes with so many "gotchas" and installing stuff otherwise is just "here you have all the privileges of my user". MacOS sandboxing/security scoping feels way better for desktop use.
Dealing with real-time on Linux is an issue, yes. It has gotten better with pipewire but still far from MacOS.
Everything else I have it on pretty much "just works". I am not a big gamer, but Steam works. Bluetooth works. Wi-Fi works. It detects my printer and scanner better than my wife's windows laptop. No browser crashes.
NixOS is well supported on the Framework and on my workstation. The worst type of inconveniences I have nowadays would be things like what I had some weeks ago: Zoom wouldn't find an already-running process and would get stuck in a loop, solved it by running "nixos-rebuild switch --upgrade".
Compare that with the complaints that you hear from Apple users and the constant reporting on declining quality on MacOS and iOS, and you see why I take issue with statements like "most linux users want the MacOS experience, except with more customization".
MacOS has solved laptop suspend since the 2000s. Windows and Linux still struggle with this, especially due to the switch from S3- to S0ix-style sleep.
Modern Apple laptops seem less special now but you also have to look at them through the lens of their introduction.
A similar thing is true for Sonos. They don't seem all that special now, but you have to realize they have been offering multi-room synced audio with a good UX since 2006. That's before the iPhone even was released.
Yeah, it's not that hard if the hardware is high quality and of small number of known types.
Windows and Linux is judged by whether it works on any hardware, including the so-cheap-it-should-not-have-been-produced-ever machines, that will obviously just plain suck. No amount of software can save shitty hardware.
I feel like Linux proselytizers are always talking about how Linux will revive or improve low-powered hardware, and that’s one of the reasons it’s so great. Then when it’s still a poor experience, the same Linux users say things like this, that no software can save bad hardware. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
Also, Linux expressly aims to run on a wide array of hardware, and macOS doesn’t. So Linux should be judged across a large range of hardware and macOS shouldn’t, in the same way a Jeep should be judged on its off-roading abilities and a Civic shouldn’t.
A supersonic airplane is not better than a bicycle, nor the reverse is true. They are just.. different and only marginally related.
Also, "revive" a device is more of a niche thing. What's more generally in line with linux's philosophy is it scaling down to embedded-like hardware, but also scaling up to supercomputers. Neither end is "a bad experience", and none of the other mainstream desktop OSs can even hold a candle next to it.
Countless other things about the way they work and how they handle what you want to do with them? We're not comparing radically different things, I was intentional about my comparison of Jeep vs Civic: they're the same basic tool, with different applications and contexts where they shine. This isn't an airplane and a bicycle.
Not really - a Jeep and a Civic is pretty similar in use case still. The Mac would be more like a tram that can only go on rails vs perhaps a bus. If we want to make some useless comparison.
Hard to agree with those critics when the OS is doing the right thing, but the hardware won't play ball. The reason there's so much code in the Linux kernel is for various shenanigans that hardware vendors came up with. Yesterday I was looking at how HDMI audio is being implemented. From the specs, it looks quite nice with support for PCM and rates supported sent via EDID, but there's like 5 implementations for that one, 3 of them handling hacks by the GPU vendors.
the last time i tried changing the audio sample rate for an external dac on a silver blue based immutable distro it would reset every time i rebooted so no this is not an outdated argument. linux still has serious issues with the basics
Idk, I tried Linux last year and couldn’t get my USB wifi to work, even bought a new one that claimed to support Linux, and even tried an entirely new distro (went from Arch to Mint) and still had major problems. Windows handled it just fine.
That combined with a lack of good creative software on Linux kind of kills it for me. I’d rather use it than Windows, but MacOS seems like the best option currently.
In my personal experience macOS is fine but updates are often buggy or regress performance. Linux has just been the more polished option. Plus it just has a nicer desktop and apps.
I stay 1 major version behind with MacOS. If you do that you should have a pretty stable experience. You still get all the security patches but skip most bugs/regressions.
I use macos because of the battery life and because I want a Linux like experience without wondering if some weird software a company update forces on us will work, like citrix desktop or their random vpn client. But for someone who spends most of their time in the terminal, and the rest of the time in a browser, macos has some really annoying quirks especially when it comes to window management
"entirely possible" is a bit of a stretch. You can install some hacky WM and sketchybar but system settings, workspace three finger scroll speed, the finder app, window chrome, login screen etc are not something that can easily be changed. And the default apps are really not that great for power users. Calendar, Mail and Finder are all slow, dumbed down and only very superficially customizable. I daily drive an M2 Pro MBP and I was running a Linux desktop up until 2 years ago and I felt like there were barely any limits to customizing the latter while I have to fight macOS at every step if I want to do something that apple does not want me to do.
Some people seem to get better battery life with Windows than with Linux.
Most users on any OSes are not ricers. Most of my customisation is functional - panels and widgets placed for practical reasons. A lot of people do not seem to customise at all, or barely.
Ricing is big, but I also like the hackability and development friendly environment of Linux that isn't there on Macbooks (been running MacOS as a secondary for ~5yrs now)
The difficult thing with Linux has always been finding well supported hardware. People always try to get it running on whatever random collection of hardware they have on hand and then are surprised that they have some problems. If you buy with Linux in mind you can get hardware that just works.
> MacOS by far has the least bugs and kinda just works.
MacOS is sometimes so weird and inconsistent that it's hard to tell whether it's a bug of Apple usual's "you are not smart/cool-enough to understand" kind of feature.
I'm likely not "most Linux ricers", but as a long-term desktop Linux user, I'm very bothered when I have to use macOS GUI, and explicitly want a non-macOS experience. (This is why I avoid Gnome, for instance.)
> My variosu Linux adventures have always resulted in doing random patches for audio or screen incompatibility.
Is that on Mac hardware? I run a 14 year old Mac Book Air, and it works flawlessly with the latest Nixos, and has done for the last 11 years.
If you have issues on random PCs, it's because there are an enormous variety of them out there, with all kinds of incompatibilities that have to be worked around. On Mac hardware, there tends to be a more restricted number of variants, and after a few years, Linux becomes rock solid on them.
So the OP is correct, Linux on Mac hardware is the best combo.
A 14 year old Macbook Air is an Intel Mac, AFAIK most hardware is pretty well supported.
M series Macs are still very much a work in progress. I'm typing this on one, in Linux, so plenty of things work, but not for example USB-C output to an external display, and a lot of the processor power level / suspend stuff is still not fully there so battery life is quite a bit worse, especially when suspended. I think the situation is rather worse on the latest generation hardware, too.
Liquid Ass enters the chat, Apple can’t even make rounded corners anymore.
I was burned by the 2016 MacBook Pro keyboard, and once Liquid Ass was announced I knew it was time to get out.
Sold my MacBook Pro M2 Pro, which has a stupid gigantic notch that blocks the menu bar items with no built-in mechanism for getting to them when they overflow.
Now I’m on a Framework 13” and I’ve had zero issues with Linux. Everything just works. KDE Plasma is way more customizable than macOS or Windows. I’m finally able to ditch slow Homebrew and use a real package manager. I can finally play light PC games on my laptop without dealing with streaming or Crossover.
My preorder is in for the Framework 13 Pro, which looks to get even closer to delivering a MacBook Pro for Linux. Meanwhile, Apple hasn’t changed their chassis design in 5 years, while Framework updates their hardware constantly while maintaining cross-compatibility. A company with less than 500 employees is catching up to a trillion dollar corporation.
I’ve already got my fully modular LPCAMM RAM delivered and ready with no Apple tax. I’ll get better battery life watching YouTube videos than a MacBook Pro and the graphics are just as powerful as the M5 base chip.
And if something breaks I won’t have to deal with the nightmare I went through with my 2016 MacBook Pro.
I agree that MacOS is more polished. However overall, Linux is a better complete package - especially for power users, gamers and engineers.
Linux GUIs are _fine enough_ though the jank is still present. The good news is they will get better with more users entering the chat.
The thing to note is that, we don't want to confuse "it's not as good right now" with "It's bad so I will never use it" because that signals a lack of interest.
There is a non-zero chance that Apple could be compelled to support it if enough people express interest (historically, they have with bootcamp).
Competition is good, even if the competition is bad right now. We must encourage it.
Generally yes, but the community around MLX has rallied pretty strong. Sure your disk io is awful, and your OS is buggy, but at least ML compiles and works on a modern OS.
I sympathize. But it seems so weird to me to be a Linux open source adopter, who is also so am conservative. Heck yes KDE, sway, Niri, and so many other new desktops are so so so nice. I can't imagine staying in the old world.
But who should AMD for example target? It seems obvious to me. Personally I think if you are trying to make tools like ai acceleration software, you should 100% be focused on the alpha geeks. The people who want bleeding edge new stuff, the people who will take that and roll with it and expand your ecosystem are almost entirely the early adopters. The progressives are the social tastemakers, are the point on the adoption curve where cool and good happens.
It's infuriating watching AMD bungle their chances by targeting people interested in ancient technology, for their incredibly advanced powerful rich new stack. What are you doing?!?! There needs to be a starting point for the alpha geeks, those who are willing.
> But it seems so weird to me to be a Linux open source adopter, who is also so am conservative.
I used to be a tech enthusiast who installed the latest bleeding edge everything.
Now days I need a stable machine that lets me work. Sometimes my work is bleeding edge, but I want my machine to be boring and stable.
I can't run the latest open source models if I can't get my machine to even boot.
Also some of the latest AI stuff (desktop control, full screen recording, etc) doesn't support wayland. E.g. https://pieces.app/ prefer x11 due to the simpler security model.
TheRock is so close but there just doesn't seem to be an eye on the ball for actually making this usable. This stack of issues blocking even vaguely modern systems has been sitting untouched for months.
There are fringes that have wacky and particular priorities, but not recognizing that you are such a niche and asserting that your silly requirement makes them “not the best” for the vast majority of people is silly
The real answer is probably simpler than anyone here is making it. Apple hardware margins are healthy enough that selling macbooks to linux users is pure profit, so no services lock-in needed. However, the moment they officially acknowledge Linux support, then it becomes a support surface. Every kernel panic becomes a genius bar visit. Every driver bug becomes a tweet at @AppleSupport. It's the value of plausible deniability. The Asahi team being unofficial is actually the best possible outcome for Apple in that they get hardware sales to Linux enthusiasts without any support burden.
> However, the moment they officially acknowledge Linux support, then it becomes a support surface.
Apple documents lots of things the genius bar won't help with. For example, Apple provides instructions for compiling custom builds of the XNU kernel. However, if you replace the stock kernel and your Mac kernel panics, the genius bar isn't going to help you. (Maybe they'd help you wipe the computer and restore everything to stock, but I imagine they'd do that if a Linux user walked in too, even today.)
I suspect Apple hasn't shared documentation because it would take time to prepare for external release (legal stuff, plus the need to avoid leaking future products). What I don't understand is why Apple hasn't made an engineer available to talk on the phone for a couple of hours a month. This would amount to a rounding error in their budget.
As used by commercial hardware and software vendors, "support" can mean anything from "we'll come fix it for you when it breaks, or your money back" to merely "theoretically, it should work, and we won't get in the way of you trying". Likewise, "unsupported" can mean anything from "don't complain to us if it doesn't work" to "we're going to spend significant engineering effort to prevent it from working".
A stance of "here's some hardware documentation, implement the drivers yourself" definitely falls within that spectrum of "support", and is the kind of "support" for Linux that some hardware vendors have in the past been lauded for, eg. when AMD started documenting their GPUs.
That level of "support" from Apple for running Linux bare-metal on Apple Silicon would be an improvement from the status quo, and in practice would probably be sufficient to get good drivers written and upstreamed in short order, given how much interest there is in running Linux on these devices.
We're talking about "people walking into Genius Bar expecting help with Linux" support. It's not philosophical discussion on what support is, there's literally a specific thing discussed here.
That's one of the several forms of support under discussion, under the specious claim that it would become the expected level of support as soon as Apple declared any level of support for Linux. But as the comments you're refusing to understand have explained, Apple could meaningfully "support" Linux in the form of providing hardware documentation, without making any promises to help any customers troubleshoot Linux running on that hardware.
> What do you mean by needed? A lock-in is more profitable so is needed to maximise profits.
You can't lock-in Linux users because vast majority of them won't switch to macOS and ecosystem at large. This is simply a currently untapped market they could easily almost entirely own if they wanted to. With growing Linux popularity, extra 3-4% of the laptop market share is nothing they can ignore in front of shareholders.
I am not convinced they would "entirely own" the market - they have a small range of hardware. Even less so in the long term. That extra few percentage points would be a lot less profitable as they would only have the margin on extra hardware sales so would not add much to profits - not enough for shareholders to care about.
It also risks existing users switching to Linux which could be a huge loss. Apple has a very loyal user base how do not try anything else and the last thing they want to do is risk encouraging them to try alternatives. Losses could be quite significant: if an existing user switches to Linux not only might you lose software and services sales, but you also risk losing future hardware sales (longer replacement cycle, and no barrier to switching to other hardware).
> I am not convinced they would "entirely own" the market - they have a small range of hardware. Even less so in the long term. That extra few percentage points would be a lot less profitable as they would only have the margin on extra hardware sales so would not add much to profits - not enough for shareholders to care about.
I am aware of that, but there's another factor here: accelerating Windows users switching to Linux on Apple hardware. Those Linux MacBooks would be killer devices that nothing in Windows world can compete against! I mean we can all agree the tech social media would go bonkers over that, wouldn't it? If a couple of YouTubers were able to bump those Linux numbers significantly and spearhead gamers questioning their choices, imagine the dent Apple would make. I am absolutely certain Apple would gain couple extra percentage points with Apple on Linux devices within first year and make Microsoft shit their pants in the process.
> It also risks existing users switching to Linux which could be a huge loss. Apple has a very loyal user base how do not try anything else and the last thing they want to do is risk encouraging them to try alternatives.
Aren't you contradicting yourself here a bit? If they're very loyal, there isn't much risk of them switching, is there?
But yeah, Product Cannibalization is always a risk, though it doesn't mean they couldn't actually embrace Linux and offer ecosystem integration there. iCloud integration? Sure, why not? iPhone integration? Why not? Apple TV app? Again, especially to attract those Windows users making a switch, who are much more used to paying for services and software?
Heck, they could even port AppStore over and improve Swift's cross-platform compatibility, especially considering Swift is fairly cross-platform already. I doubt many software products wold get ported, though. Besides, macOS AppStore is not a huge earner for Apple, considering the platform is open, unlike iOS, so macOS users switching to Linux don't have to imply a significant loss of income from ecosystem spending. Also, many loyal macOS users would likely dual-boot and be happy to continue to buy and use macOS-exclusive software as needed.
This isn't unrealistic, I seriously think it's a matter of time when those numbers start making sense for Apple. Also, if US administration changes, both US and EU regulation bodies will be back on Big Tech asses and for Apple to open to Linux to say "hey, we're pretty open" is another win.
> Aren't you contradicting yourself here a bit? If they're very loyal, there isn't much risk of them switching, is there?
That needs clarification. They are loyal because they do not try anything else and often make assumptions that other OSes are worse than they actually are. They often assume a lot of features (e.g. shared clipboards across devices) are Apple only. They will not take the risk of buying non-Apple hardware to try another OS.
> Product Cannibalization is always a risk, though it doesn't mean they couldn't actually embrace Linux and offer ecosystem integration there. iCloud integration?
It reduces the lock-in the have with existing customers. Having that lockin over the whole stack is what keeps them in the ecosystem.
> Also, if US administration changes, both US and EU regulation bodies will be back on Big Tech asses and for Apple to open to Linux to say "hey, we're pretty open" is another win.
I have less faith in the regulators than that. The push to open has never been that strong. No-one has challenged things like limiting software installation to the app-store, and Google is confident enough that no-one will to be switching to the same with Android in a few months time.
> Besides, macOS AppStore is not a huge earner for Apple, considering the platform is open, unlike iOS, so macOS users switching to Linux don't have to imply a significant loss of income from ecosystem spending
Not yet. They have the option of gradually making "side loading" harder (for our own security, of course) and increasing that profit.
Well, agreed on all points. I guess the conclusion is time will tell, but I am sure Apple is legitimately looking into this on some level, especially since Steam is doing so well and keeps expanding Linux user-base.
> the moment they officially acknowledge Linux support, then it becomes a support surface
untrue. There are no obligations from other hardware vendors, yet you can sometimes get good drivers from them, or at least specs. I think Apple indeed want their hardware to fade out to enforce buying another. Imagine that 20% of your returning customers no longer return after 3-5 years of planned obsolence
I am baffled by how people commonly parrot that flawed logic. Hint: by not seeling those laptops to Linux users they're not making money at all, neither on hardware nor on services.
By selling laptops to users who will never spend on highly profitable recurring revenue stream Apple would be depleting precious Ram stock for tiny one time profit.
So you're suggesting company would rather not sell a product now but rather wait until a "proper" Apple customer is ready for an upgrade? Product that has a significant profit margin upfront?
Also, have you heard about Apple's multi-billion RAM contracts they sign every few years to lock in the prices and supply?
It has already been reported Apple ran out of parts for NEOs. M4 minis are sold out. High end Mac Studio configs have been cancelled. Yes Apple does feel the crunch.
This is the big one IMHO. Apple is all about control of the stack, top to bottom. Any sort of "help" with linux on macos would be threatening to that control. Apple "helped" even more than I would have expected by not locking alt OSes out of the bootloader. Probably for less than altruistic reasons, but they did do it.
I don't know if that's true. Linux users are curious and will try more stuff but people mistake that they file bug reports (and usually detailed ones...) with complaining more.
Apple's MO is that it's their baby. End of. They don't do open. Their compiler is closed source, and so on.
One of the reasons I can see is it’s much easier to say “we don’t play this game” than get a lot of negative press for selective openness and breaking compatibility of non-public interfaces. Maybe it’s even more important internally, as it enables new kind of internal discussions distracting from priority work.
I imagine the real reason is that if they change things they now have an obligation to promptly share technical docs and if they're slow people will whine and bitch online about them. Not worth it. They have zero to gain (and I say this as someone who would love to dual boot Linux on my M4).
Plenty are whining now and that doesn't seem to bother them. I mean, this is one of the largest companies in the world. This is the company that once told people they were holding the phone wrong. I can't see them being particularly more bothered by people complaining in a slightly different way.
Apple's whole thing is hardware + software working together. Endless other options available to Linux users. They'd also need to be prepared for people bringing laptops to stores with hardware problems that aren't running macOS. Again, more burden for Apple for no gain other than winning over a couple of dozen users.
Do you seriously think someone who installed Asahi is gonna walk into a genius bar and ask for help with it? And often enough that it becomes a burden??
And according to their stats page that sibling linked it’s more like a few tens of thousands of users.
It feels very close to “right to repair”. The coffee grinder you bought came as a single package but it has burrs, gears, machine screws, a motor, etc. If one of those components fails, we should be able to replace it ourselves and as such they should be documented.
The laptop has various pieces of hardware in it and corresponding drivers in macOS to make them tick. Did we buy the hardware and the drivers as an inseparable package, or should we be provided with the manual to make one component work when the other breaks, be that either third party trackpads or third party (Linux) drivers.
Apple might argue that drivers, unlike gears or motors, will never wear down and fail. They won’t need repairing so you don’t get to know how they work. Does right to repair only apply to products that could ever need repairing? Does it also extend to knowing how your purchased product is built so that you could repair it?
Maybe we’ll see a test case some day when a cosmic ray blows out /System/Trackpad.kext and a litigant applies to a court for the documentation to repair their laptop — to write their own driver!
(Or vice versa: a manufacturer of coffee grinders arguing in court that they are exempt from right-to-repair because they repair their machines for free at their Genius Espresso Bar.)
This is an interesting thought exercise. I immediately thought of the counter argument that Apple's driver quality is worse, especially for laptops nearing end of life (for the sake of argument assume this were true).
Could I then submit a warranty claim and demand Apple replace my aging laptop with their latest model?
I think there is a strong case that "the right to repair" includes software. If that doesn't mean drivers must be open source, it should at least mean hardware is documented such that a driver can be written from it.
But the US still doesn't have the right to repair hardware, haha.
I hope the EU is listening. They won't get far with their sovereign software push if hardware cannot be used. Even on the Android side, you can't write an alternative to Android because all of the hardware has locked bootloaders and hidden drivers. Good luck reverse engineering the hardware/drivers on a Samsung Galaxy - let alone an iPhone or MacBook.
I was trying to come up with a response but you're right. It would be easy for Apple and Apple would get so much goodwill from the community in return.
Looking at: https://stats.asahilinux.org/ there is still a pretty large userbase who are so interested in it they go this route. I imagine that count would easily 10x if it would be officially supported. Those numbers are nothing to sneeze at.
I'm running asahi on my macbook. And never touch OSX. I wouldn't even had gotten it if asahi wasn't so well supported.
And let’s be honest, they still wouldn’t be satisfied. The goal post would move to something else. Why don’t my AirPods seamlessly handoff to my Linux MacBook?
I doubt that. The developer community is what made the MacBook predominant in every tech organization. Before that Macs were mostly popular in the creative sector.
Yes, Linux developers are officially supported by both Apple and Microsoft, with Microsoft developers being a major contributor to upstream Linux and WSL2 having grown into a capable Linux development environment.
Being the least bad doesn't make something good. macOS is the least bad choice for the majority of people that just want a machine to mostly browse the Internet, look at their photos, do some light productivity work, and participate in their ecosystem. It also arguably hosts has the best software options for creative work (although that's reaping the fruits of seeds planted long ago - not sure there's much about macOS that makes it inherently better for those tasks these days). For development, its advantage is the hardware it's running on. To achieve any level of customization or to define my own workflow that isn't what Apple wants me to do or to work across multiple systems, I have to fight macOS rather than work with it. Linux on the other hand does what I tell it to do.
I’ve been using macOS because its creative ecosystem for decades. And over the last 10 years, it’s started to be apparent to me this is an expensive and unstable place to be. It will not be a place where tools find longstanding stability measured in decades. It is and will be a place where various sandcastle taxes are periodically assessed so the particular vision of the platform as a novel current luxury experience will be reinforced, and developers and users will be asked to keep pace on the treadmill and smile.
Linux as a desktop OS for the vast overwhelming majority of people is a far inferior option. It just is, and always has been. Even for developers, MacOS doesn't prevent you from getting your job done and getting paid, while using arguably the best laptop hardware. Shit just works and stays out of your way.
If all MacOS has going for it is better hardware, someone would have stepped up and shipped a better linux laptop ages ago. God knows I'm not going back to a flimsy creaking chassis, shit screen, and horrible battery life just so my Docker container doesn't have to run in a VM.
The vast majority of people that buy Macs for the ecosystem aren't going to switch to Linux. That market will remain untouched. Outside of a few gamers who might want to put up with the x86-to-ARM translation layer and (for most A to AAA games) Proton to run some non-Mac games. And even they'll probably still dual-boot.
There's a portion of another market: people who want to run Linux and want a powerful laptop who buy x86 Laptops right now. Apple could expend very little relative effort while offering no official support by helping Asahi get that to a first class platform. They won't capture them in the ecosystem (and they never would have) but will still benefit from hardware sales to them.
Obviously, if they sold their hardware at a loss and subsidized that with ecosystem capture that would be a non-starter. But from everything we know, the hardware itself is very profitable.
Yeah, and having the only supported OS be MacOS means they can entice people to upgrade when they want. No continuing on with 8+ year old hardware and a lightweight Linux distro even if it's fine for the intended use case.
They do also make a lot of money selling hardware, and as things stand today that business happens to make them look like the first tech giant to actually profit from the AI boom (because the hardware they've been developing internally for years happens to be among the best consumer-grade options for self-hosting LLMs). Making their hardware more attractive to tinkerers could be a winning move right now.
This, but also you would be allowing people to learn Linux. Developer with a Mac has to be one of the most common linux defectors. I suspect most people don't realize how doable and comfortable the switch can be.
It’s been my experience that developers running Mac already know how to use Linux and actively choose to use Mac. Unless the company is forcing it at least.
They pay for the hardware that they run Linux on. Apple's hardware division is very profitable without the "value" adds they run through their ecosystem, and those people never would have bought into the ecosystem whether they used MacOS or not.
I think the biggest value Apple gets from Asahi is they can point EU regulators at it as proof the Mac isn't a closed platform that should be a designated DMA gatekeeper. They don't need Asahi to be complete, they just need it to exist.
We really need to retire this phrase, it’s become a humblebrag way of calling the other party delusional without even trying to understand.
The list here though is long: priorities, accuracy concerns, blurring the line on official support, IP restrictions with third parties (even Apple uses plenty of licensed cores), etc.
I don't see it that way. It's just the GP poster saying that they don't get it. Usually that means the GP poster isn't experienced enough to understand the rationality. So I generally assume the GP poster is simply naive.
I wonder if there would be interest in an Asahi Remix spin focused on a more Mac-like out-of-the-box experience: cmd as the main modifier key, Mac-like keyboard shortcuts, theming, gestures, etc.
Of course, you can tweak any distro however you want, but I think a curated default experience is a different thing.
> while Ctrl is the modifier used at an application level.
DE features don't matter at all outside of cmd-tab and whatever the equivalent of spotlight is. The application level is the main modifier, and changing them all to cmd is essentially impossible at this point. A detail Haiku got just about perfect, I think.
Either way, ctrl as a gui modifier is a dealbreaker for me. It also breaks the use of readline keybindings for text entry.
I’ve had the same thought and would love this. MacOS shortcuts are too deeply ingrained in my fingers.
But every attempt of mine to make Linux shortcuts Mac-like has had too many sharp edges to be useable.
Toshy didn’t seem to work well with Wayland and felt heavy.
Probably the best so far I’ve found has been keyd and custom configs for your most used apps.
A community effort might get us there. Distribute the hours of tinkering across many passionate users instead of everyone doing it in a vacuum.
Nice to see M3 support coming along as they work their way through the upstreaming backlog and improve tooling:
> finding their way into the Asahi kernel tree are patches to enable more hardware on M3 machines. This includes support for PCIe, MacBook keyboards and trackpads support, the SMC-based RTC and reboot controller, and the NVMe controller, courtesy once again of Michael Reeves and Alyssa Milburn. This brings Linux support for the M3 up to roughly the same level as the first Asahi Linux alpha for M1!
These kind of project reports showing consistent breakthroughs and clearly a finger on the pulse of what users are encountering as pain points are a good indication that the Asahi team are real pros :)
Look forward to switching back to Asahi full time soon!!
While I love Asahi as such and am really blown away by the effort, my setup requires an encrypted ZFS root file system, which is unreasonably hard to achieve with a Mac.
The fact, that there has to be a macOS partition for maintenance ruling out ZFSBootMenu somehow is very unfortunate - but I've accepted it.
Maybe the new Framework 13 Pro will be at least in the region of an alternative... :-/
I’m curious, broadly, what is involved with this. I just got encrypted (LUKS) BTRFS root going on my two Asahi machines and it wasn’t _terrible_… but also definitely not easy.
Well... I'm never using BTRFS again, see [1] for why - disclaimer: This is a personal opinion, not a recommendation. Since I switched to ZFS, everything is awesome ;) Besides creating zarch[2], I recently noticed that there is weird stuff happening in some of the used components, so I switched to CachyOS, which contains a ZFS Kernel and a good enough installer to get started with encrypted ZFS root. And I think they are also working on ZFSBootMenu integration, but I don't find the link right now :-)
M3 support nearly at alpha is fantastic news, and I'm really looking forward to M4 in the future. I am not looking forward to whatever Apple has planned this year for macOS, or next.
The mentioned light sensor started malfunctioning on my work's m3 after upgrading to tahoe. After a sleep it sometimes dimms the screen at max. Thankfully I have the monitor control app which brings it back for me. Such unneeded and faulty mechanism.
Really hope that by the time all my M4 Macs are no longer updated by Apple I can just switch to Asahi and get a 1:1 compatible OS in terms of supporting all the hardware my Macs come with.
Lina got the happy ending. She moved on to apply her talent to bigger and better projects - the real tragedy is how many years of volunteer effort were wasted by Apple's opaque documentation.
Does somebody know the power values for idle and sleep for this release? When I tried Remix 43 on a m2 mb pro 1 month ago the idle power usage was above 5W (max 10h) and sleep roughly 3W (~20h).
I doubt it too, but I was hoping to hear from someone who'd tried it. I don't care about peripherals, even booting it without the storage with a serial getty would be useful for me.
Yeah I think if they manage to solve that then we're gonna be cruising. I want to but can't really run AsahiLinux as it stands, my workstation is Thunderbolt-based and that's non-negotiable.
I got into Linux because it gave me things I couldn't get with Windows/Mac (in 1994). There are less things that is true for now, by far. I am drawn to the ideals of Free Software (maybe BSD style, maybe GNU style) like a moth to the flame. Nonetheless, I have a smartphone, which since 2016 has been an iPhone.
Now there are things I can't get with Linux that I value with macOS. The integration with the phone is just not possible if am running Linux. The power management and convenient things like Apple Music, too.
I was disgusted to see Tim Cook abase himself before Trump and spent a while researching alternative phones. I did not find anything that looked like a serious option. There are things I need that are only available for iPhone or Android, it's become table stakes for life nowadays. My E-car charger required an app to function, for instance.
I admire people who "vote with their wallet" and/or suffer inconvenience for their ideals. But I am not going to install Linux (or OpenBSD) on my M1 Macbook pro. It's too essential for me the way it is.
For the record, I pour a lot of time into my 2014 macbook running arch and a thinkpad running OpenBSD, and keep an arch server/desktop running pretty much 24/7. I spend tons of time trying to find/devise things on Linux to match things I use that are closed-source/apple only.
Hats off to people who can program at the level required to make this happen. It's beyond me. And also to those trying to make Pine Phone etc a realistic option. I think that's the most important free software battleground now.
Unfortunately iPhones have locked bootloaders that prohibit installing other operating systems. People have gotten Linux running on iPhones, but it requires jailbreaking and that has gotten much harder over time. And it's not really worth putting effort into developing an OS if nobody is going to be able to install it.
I am both a monthly supporter of the Asahi project and a full-time macOS user. Why? I love to support hackers. But I am also a realist and have given up on the idea of a linux laptop that "just works" and have embraced teh first party experience of the wholly integrated software and hardware experience of the apple ecosystem.
am I just a smooth brained dumb dumb that has drunk the koolaid? perhaps. but I don't lose sleep on it and am not tinkering with hardware, or software anymore, I just get stuff done now.
This is the delulu Linux world thinking all over again. “Just get one with no dGPU, just this chipset, just this and this escoteric thing” and you’ll be fine.
This is how macOS works, too. "Just buy this M.2 adapter and this transcode card but not that GPU" and your hardware will be supported for two major releases.
I'm glad they dropped the ban on HN readers[1]. That was my very first impression of Asahi Linux that I ever encountered and it's unfortunately what I think of every time I see it show up here.
Honestly, knowing what I know about marcan, the decision was probably the result of an overwhelming/strong emotional reaction.
Not to just shit all over him or anything, but it really sucks to see someone who is genuinely top-ten-on-earth when it comes to "real hacking" struggle so much with socialisation and mental health.
It is weird to blame the victim for reacting to being harassed by a mob. That is a normal thing to have a reaction to. Perhaps rather than blaming people's social skills and mental health, we should instead blame the culture that normalises harassing people on the internet, even to the point of suicide (as happened in byuu's case). You are basically advocating that it is better for individuals to change to accept a shitty society as a given rather than advocating for society to change to be less shitty.
Marcan was clearly mentally unwell. He delusionally thought there was some harassment mob after him. After the fallout with Linux kernel devs, the lolipedo accusations, and him being outed as the vtuber Asahi Lina, he arguably did the correct thing: deleted every social media account and abandoned Asahi Linux. I hope he stepped away from screens and spent some time outdoors.
I'm genuinely unfamiliar of the harassment campaign that HN launched against him.
(I am familiar with some comments debating the validity of Byuu/Near's gender identity, and marcan's extremely strong reaction to that, but no actual harassment campaigns)
This is not a dichotomy. It's not healthy to take random online comments to heart so much. It's also bad to make such ridiculous comments. Both can be true at the same time.
This diminishes what "random online comments" are. They aren't just text on a screen. They represent words that another human being has said about you. Often, words that will convince other human beings, who may take different actions or view you differently because of what they've been told, which will in turn spread virally and alter how thousands and thousands of humans see you and act towards you.
Humans are a social species. It is easy to say "just don't be social bro". When you are actually the victim of this behaviour, it is much less easy to shrug off. Having a bunch of people hate you and say horrible things about you hurts. That's not abnormal. That is perfectly normal. Is it good for your health? No, in the same way that somebody smoking next to me is not good for my health, but it's not my fault the person next to me is smoking. The blame rests with them. To some extent, yes, stepping away from the smoker is a short-term fix, although often an unpleasant one that impacts your quality of life in other ways (what if the restaraunt you like is full of smokers, what if the airport is full of smokers, etc). In the same way society eventually changed to discourage smoking around other people, we really, really need to change the culture around the internet, to recognise that the internet is actually a social environment, that there are real people on both sides of the screen. "Go touch grass" implies that the internet is not the real world, but it very much is, with real consequences, even if you can't see the other person.
I agree it would be much better if online culture improved, and I don’t think anyone would argue against that. The difficulty is that change at that scale tends to be slow and unpredictable, on the order of decades, so you can't rely on it in the short term.
Because of that I think there’s value in focusing on what individuals can control, like setting boundaries, disengaging when things get overwhelming, or stepping away from spaces that become unhealthy.
That doesn’t mean the behavior is acceptable, or that people should just tolerate it. It’s more about acknowledging that, while broader change is important, taking steps to protect yourself is the only immediate and reliable option.
> The belief that this will happen is also a malicious fairy tale to tell to people.
Cultural change is possible. It is not something that will happen, no. But it is something that can happen, if enough people choose to make it happen. Making it happen starts by pointing this out and not blaming the people on the wrong end of this behaviour.
This kind of thinking reminds me of my truly most loathed thought-terminating cliche of all time, "life's not fair", as a justification for supporting some horribly unfair status quo. True, life isn't fair, but humanity has collectively spent an unbelievable amount of effort doing all kinds of things to make it slightly more fair, one step at a time. We can make it more fair. That's what we do as humans. We bend the world to our collective will.
---
seems the comment I was responding to was completely rewritten while I was writing this. oh well.
You are derailing this discussion by keep moving it to: "This is what the world should be like", and no one is disagreeing with that here. This is not what anything I said is about.
The very first comment I replied to was insulting the victim's social skills and mental stability. This is the exact opposite of what is needed to reach "what the world should be like". Positive progress is not inevitable. It does not happen by some fate of the universe, where if we just wait things will naturally improve and life will get better. When positive progress does happen, it happens by humans consciously choosing to act in ways that make the world a better place rather than in ways that do not.
>The very first comment I replied to was insulting the victim's social skills and mental stability.
Dude, the very first comment you responded to was itself a response to someone who suggested that the frankly unhinged HN "ban" was a decision that was "not taken lightly".
They literally stuck a comment into the site banner suggesting that HN comments critical of Asahi or their devs was part of a Kiwi Farms targeted harassment campaign trying to take advantage of HN's SEO.
I don't know why you're continually upholding this fantasy, referring to marcan as a "victim", or pretending that somehow the problems of the world would all magically be solved if everyone only said positive things about other people all the time (communities like this 100% dysfunctional), but it's fucking strange and naive.
It was not a ban or anything that could even possibly be misconstrued as one. People are talking about an overreaction, but the real overreaction is here on HN. This had literally nothing to do with the topic of Asahi Linux's progress report, but somebody intentionally dredged up a year-old subject with an outright deceptive and extremely hyperbolic framing for the sole purpose of shitstirring.
> pretending that somehow the problems of the world would all magically be solved if everyone only said positive things about other people all the time (communities like this 100% dysfunctional)
This is not even remotely what I said. The issue at hand is people mobbing to personally attack and harass individuals. Earnest criticism is one thing, but there is absolutely nothing constructive or productive being accomplished by the way people are behaving on this subject.
> It was not a ban or anything that could even possibly be misconstrued as one.
That is correct. It was just a rant, really, and even then not even a long one.
> This is not even remotely what I said.
Can you clarify what you're trying to say, then? AFAIK nobody on HN is harassing marcan, Byuu, the Asahi devs or anyone else in that sort of vauge circle. We're making comments about how they might behave or present themselves publicly, and some of the comments are definitely negative - but there is no coordination or intent to belittle or anything of that sort. Just internet bitching.
(and I am open to counterexamples if you're happy to share - have people been emailing marcan personally to say "I'm from HN and you're a piece of shit"? I wouldn't be surprised if people on Kiwi Farms were doing some of that.)
This marcan person had problem with Go, he had problem with Apple fans, he had problems with linux committers, so much he left internet or something. To say everyone but marcan was wrong is just a kind of fanboyism and it hardly helps marcan.
This person liked to dish out as much as next person but display extreme reaction when served.
No it actually wouldn't. As in 15+ years of Hacker News I have not seen the same so clearly it can be so horrible that it regularly leads to such strong reaction, suggesting that for most people this isn't nearly so impactful. And very few things described could actually be called harassment, mostly it was light criticism or maybe a bit trolling.
The guy appears to have a fragile ego. Any criticism and he goes nuclear, as if he was never told "no" as a child. Sure you can have opinions about the best way to moderate comments, but I can't imagine thinking I was special enough to publicly demand how Hacker News should be run. I've worked with people like this, not fun!
I am not sure how what happened can be considered "being outed", the vtuber's puppeteer was obvious from day one to anyone who was paying any attention at all, it is just that a lot of people decided to uphold the kayfabe. (And I don't blame them, at least before the lkml crashout it was a pretty fun character.)
While there is overlap between vtuber communities and HN, the culture is quite different. When one does come up, it is eternally September on HN. In vtuber communities/culture, the persona of the vtuber is treated as entirely separate from the person behind it, even in cases where it's exceedingly obvious (e.g. someone leaves an agency to work independently).
At the very least, it is rude to disseminate, draw attention to, or even speculate aloud about the identity of the person behind the avatar. Typically it's considered harassment/doxxing (I believe this is because vtubing culture is largely derived from Japanese idol culture, which appears to be structured around dealing with stalkers). That is to say, "upholding the kayfabe" is a bare-minimum of respect.
I could see why people on the Asahi team considered HN to be a host of harassment, considering even a cursory search of HN turns up comments "compiling evidence" about Asahi Lina's identity (including one still-up comment that straight-up links to Kiwi Farms, which is almost certainly done for purpose of harassment). I'm not sure if Hacker News ought to be moderating comments that deconstructs pseudonyms where clear effort has been made to separate it from the person behind them, but I also empathize with not wanting to be linked to accordingly.
I do not understand why people would rather play into the delusions of a clearly mentally unwell individual for months and year on end — when they well know it's bullshit — under the guise of this somehow being in the interests of said individual and/or being fun. This, to me, is the height of selfishness clocked in disingenuous empathy.
The widespread normalisation of this behaviour, and the subsequent ~~thought~~ now real policing around the issue, is a clear mark of a deep societal ill.
Genuine answer: sometimes. I've done similar levels of reverse engineering. Keep in mind that LLMs, and all other AI, "think" as they are programmed to. When you need to do something they don't know how to do, because you're the first person in history to do it, it turns into a lot of hand holding. Especially when you're dealing with physical devices that can explode if misprogrammed, I've found it's best to keep them working on the lower hanging fruit.
Nothing is stopping you from using LLMs when contributing to their project (I think). One reason might simply be that they would rather spend the (very sparse) donation money on anything else but tokens.
They do currently ban LLM-assisted submissions. To be honest, even if LLMs are technically capable of writing code that assists the project, this at least helps keeps the 'floodgate' closed for certain low-quality PRs that other open-source projects are getting.
>.. macOS only ever programs CS42L84 to operate at either 48 or 96 kHz, we could only add support for those two sample rates to the Linux driver ..
> However, CS42L42 supports all the other common sample rates, and while the register layout and programming sequence is different, the actual values programmed in for 48 and 96 kHz are the same across both chips. What would happen if we simply took the values for all other sample rates from the CS42L42 datasheet and added those to the CS42L84 driver? As it turns out, you get support for those sample rates!
> The patch to enable hardware support for 44.1, 88.2, 176.4 and 192 kHz sample rates on both the input and output of the headphone jack was submitted directly upstream, and has been merged for 7.1. We also backported this to Asahi kernel 6.19.9, allowing users to take advantage of this immediately.
Nice bit of chip sleuthing and reverse engineering from the Asahi team!
The following is actually the most surprising part to me.
> This is quite limiting, as it forces PipeWire to waste CPU cycles (and therefore battery life) on resampling audio streams that are not either 48 or 96 kHz.
So the Asahi team thinks that only supporting 48 or 96 kHz wastes battery life by forcing the software to resample audio streams. But why does Apple still do this? Presumably Apple has a very high commitment to save power and increase battery life.
Always possible that it's the standard commercial software company reason: They do know about it and have a P2 bug tracking it, but the team that maintains that code has 5000 other things to do, and it never gets fixed.
More likely it’s that 48 kHz is a more sensible default, since the majority of non-music digital audio is sampled at 48 kHz, almost anyone who cares about potential audio artifacts introduced by resampling is going to be using an external DAC, and (from an Apple-centric viewpoint) almost anyone concerned about the energy consumption of music playback on their MacBook is going to listen to music on their iPhone instead.
Maybe this is a little pedantic, but we're not talking about a default among the many other available options supported by the chip. We're talking about 48 or 96 kHz being intentionally (or unintentionally) made the only allowed options.
So either someone said "we must disallow the other options" or they didn't and it's a bug.
do we ever get apple engineers rolling thru here or on mastodon? wish stuff like this wasn't such a black box behind the scenes.
i think the only time ive ever run into an apple engineer was on mastodon related to gptk it was interesting to see they actually are quite tuned into what is possible on these devices and what that could mean for gaming. despite being a developer toolkit to help studios get a read on the work needed to optimize a game for a metal port, they were expressing that they were well aware such tools showed a lot of promise for getting games going on mac. not much of a gamer myself, but thought it was interesting to see a slice into engineering there & that they weren't as hostile as HN would believe them to be and broadly aligned with many of us. id be mega curious what apple engineers think about asahi.
We’ve had a few over the years but it’s usually after they’ve left.
E.g, an AppKit engineer or two, or the primary dev behind Rosetta 2. Not so sure of any hardware-engineers tho.
> do we ever get apple engineers rolling thru here or on mastodon? wish stuff like this wasn't such a black box behind the scenes.
Very rarely. I believe because Apple has a culture of secrecy and contractually forbids employees from sharing details about their work in most circumstances (and actually enforces this).
I used to work there and can confirm this. They beat it into you during training when you’re first hired that anything you say can become viral news or be attributed as an official statement from Apple and they are strict about enforcement.
There’s also extreme secrecy both between teams on different projects and even between teams within the same project just working on different parts of it. At least that was my experience.
I did enjoy my time there, but it was a very unique/strange development culture.
damn. that sucks.
[dead]
Imagine LCD screen capable of emitting from IR to UV and people up in arms because laptop vendor software limits output to visible spectrum.
I would not agree with your analogy. [0] Turns out the movie industry actually uses infrasound in horror movies. [1] It might also explain why people think old buildings are haunted. [2]
If Apple only focuses on audible sounds, their devices lack the ability to maximize the thrill of horror movies.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrasound
[1] https://nightscapestories.com/the-art-of-sound-design-horror...
[2] https://www.theguardian.com/science/2026/apr/27/spooky-feeli...
Tell me more about laptops and phones sporting 12 inch speakers, not that low frequencies are the problem here.
Come on, don't do that here. You can see in the thread I replied to there are practical benefits for supporting additional sampling rates.
Practical reasons vanished ~20 years ago, about the time Microsoft dropped hardware audio acceleration and switched to software audio mixing. Resampling is ear transparent and eats less than 1% of one slowest possible CPU core.
Likely because the only speakers Apple cares about are Airpods/Airpod max so they are free to only pick the 2 most common sample rates.
Presumably Apple can resample audio streams extremely cheaply.
I mean the algorithms for that are known, and PipeWire/PulseAudio implements them competently. But it still has to be done.
Just like the mouse that has to be polled 100 times per second or display that is composited from all window buffers at least 60 times per second. It might really be negligible in the grand scheme of things and not worth optimizing for.
You cant imagine how much strain fast-moving mouse cursor put on display server of almost any OS if there a lot of windows open simultaneously. Also non-standard cursor sizes / formats are still such a mess everywhere since even in 2026 there are semi-hardware and software cursors...
whoa, bit perfect CD/flac playback in 44.1, that's a killer feature.
There are many audio resampling libraries available that can convert from 44.1 to 48 kHz with no perceptible quality loss. E.g. see
https://github.com/hasenbanck/resampler#quality-analysis
This is presumably what Apple does. You kind of have to anyway or you have the stupid situation Linux used to have where only one app could play audio at a time.
Hardware often reports supporting 44.1kHz but internally resamples it to 48kHz so you're better off properly resampling it yourself.
> you have the stupid situation Linux used to have where only one app could play audio at a time
When was that? I think my first Linux distribution was Ubuntu 8.04 and fairly sure it shipped with PulseAudio which in mind always been able to play audio from multiple sources at the same time, maybe I misremember?
Pure ALSA would behave like that because the currently playing process would take exclusive control of the hardware.
Upsite: Highest quality playback.
Downside: Only one process could play audio at a time.
Only if you had no hardware nor software mixing configured, which probably should be considered a misconfiguration of your system.
ALSA had dmix for some time already, but the default configuration of your distro may not have enabled it.
As I recall it was rarely enabled by default and was a pain to set up so in practice not really used.
The most common solution at the time was PulseAudio, which was so bad it usually was better to just use direct ALSA and live with the idiotic one-at-a-time limitation.
Thankfully Pipewire seems to actually work reliably so I guess that's at least one thing ticked off the Year of the Linux Desktop checklist.
It was the default on Gentoo long before Pulseaudio was the default anywhere. If other distros messed up their config I cannot say but the fixing that would have been a lot easier than moving to an entirely different system with an incompatible application interface.
Most distributions shipped ALSA preconfigured with dmix, which means multiple applications could play sound at the same time just fine.
Which is why the whole "we must use pulseaudio even if it's terrible and has awful standards that blast volume or multiple streams won't work!" was so weird… everybody who tried knew that just removing pulseaudio the multiple streams kept working :)
So only those who never applied the scientific method kept insisting that without PA it was not possible to do that.
I think PA allows for setting applications volumes and have a modular design. But it's kinda the poster child of overengineering (challenged by systemd now). Something like sndiod is more sensible for most desktop distro. People that need a more complex setup can bring in the big gun like pipewire.
I don't think the problem was over-engineering. I think the problem was that if you plugged in headphones it would instantly set the volume to 100% from whatever value it was before.
Plus of course, initially you had to regularly run killall -9 pulseaudio to fix the sound. All in a moment when ALSA with dmix worked just fine.
Sometimes I think fedora and ubuntu are trying to hinder linux as mainstream desktop.
There was a time when OSS was the only option and ALSA was rarely supported by software. ALSA's dmix also didn't exist from the start.
Around 2000 I was only able to play sound from different apps because my soundcard exposed two sound devices /dev/dsp0 and /dev/dsp1
In the time before PulseAudio, when it was ALSA (and OSS).
Even back then, it could play more than one stream. You had to have a sound card or kernel drivers that supported it (and all non-obsolete ones did by the time pulse audio came out).
I still don’t know what purpose pulseaudio serves, other than adding latency and making stuff less reliable.
PipeWire is better, but it turns out you can just use OSS under freebsd these days, and everything just works, but with lower latency.
If you have some sort of potato sound card that can’t mix output channels in hardware, note that OSS added sw mixing by 2007 (with support for 16 channels by default).
Sure, sure. I remember a time when I didn't have a sound card that supported it and couldn't play multiple streams at a time; this is a thing that really happened. I did eventually go out and buy a soundcard to enable multiple streams.
Nonsense - HDA systems were overwhelmingly the majority of Linux systems at that point, and didn't have any hardware support for multiple streams. OSS with software mixing was a commercial product that wasn't upstream. ALSA had userspace mixing but it was very much not an out of the box experience, and didn't take advantage of hardware capabilities in the way Pulseaudio did to reduce wakeups and power consumption.
ALSA had DMIX by default, all that before Pulseaudio. I remember Knoppix and a few more doing that.
DMIX was typically not an out of the box default, and had multiple shortcomings.
Even so, surely it would have been easier and better to just fix or replace dmix (in kernel, in the existing data path) than introduce a userspace daemon, break API compatibility, and so on.
It’s been 20 years and pulseaudio is still flaky / high latency / incomprehensible. Professional flows that care use stuff like jack.
TBH pipewire works much better than pulse, up to the point to replacing jack itself. But DMIX worked fine for non-professional user needs and with very low CPU usage. Yes, it was Jackd for the professional but Windows had ASIO drivers too.
Pipe might work better than pulse but it's still an overcomplicated mess compared to ALSA, which is itself an overcomplicated mess compared to OSS, which could have been easily made to support concurrent clients to /dev/dsp without all the API breakages and flaky deamons we had to suffer through.
> It’s been 20 years and pulseaudio
PipeWire replaced Pulse like five years ago; who is using Pulse at this point to make statements like "20 years" meaningful? It isn't really an ongoing concern.
Doing audio mixing well is something that is, for a number of reasons, hard to do in kernel. And if you're still using pulseaudio, why? The rest of the world's moved to pipewire, which also provides a jack-compatible interface.
Pulseaudio came with an ALSA plugin which meant applications written for the ALSA API could output to PA so it was compatible.
It was on tons user oriented distros.
This is the era where I was the lead on Ubuntu laptop support, and I promise you that dmix was not a trivial option to make things work out of the box.
I always had some Knoppix live CD/DVD which had better defaults than Ubuntu itself on hardware autodetection and setup. I think they used kudzu from RH for a good while plus custom patches.
Bear in mind the Knoppix creator had a blind wife, up to the point to creating A.R.I.A.N.E, one of the best distros for the blind (and it was merged with main KNOPPIX, making the distro one of the best accesible ones out there). Thus, proper audio mixing was mandatory.
With the bundled installer you could install it to as a Debian Testing install in the spot. As I didn't have internet at home, I remember using Knoppix before Debian Sarge because it had a huge amount of things to play and test without worrying about odd hardware setups.
Some of the context here is that that at the time, Ubuntu was aiming to work on as close to 100% of existing PCs as possible to make it available to the largest number of users. Knoppix had a lot of great features and also was very opinionated, and that had an influence on the set of hardware it worked well on by default. I evaluated basically every decision made there in terms of whether Ubuntu should adopt the same ones, and there were several that were just not good choices in terms of supporting the widest set of hardware possible.
Bullshit.
Do you think starting with "Nonsense" makes your argument better heard?
If you have two audio streams, you can't play them as is on the audio device, you have to mix them together. The same happens with analog speakers as you can't just add two signals together. I believe at one point with Alsa, when an application takes control of the audio device, no one else could play with it. Now Alsa comes with dmix (a digital mixer feature) enabled in its default configuration, so two applications may play how they want. And we have PulseAudio, Jack, and Pipewire on top of Alsa to add more features.
OpenBSD still present raw audio devices, but they have sndio which provides a more helpful interface for applications including resampling (not the best algorithms there, according to them).
Well, good enough it you read the OpenBSD FAQ section on Multimeda for RT throughput and the like.
Came later I believe. They had esd and other sound “servers” back then however. Might have had to install it yourself.
No its not. You wont be able to hear the difference between 44.1 vs 48.
While I absolutely love the technical write-up from the Asahi team, and being absolutely impressed by their accomplishment, to the risk of being an overly negative contrarian, I remain a bit skeptical.
I'm concerned that after all these years, it's still a separate project and not an effort sustained directly within the kernel mainline and mainstream distributions like Ubuntu, Debian or Fedora.
These kinds of reverse engineering projects are extremely challenging. With skills & field knowledge, it's "easy" to get to "80%" and have something useful for you and the most dedicated users. But reaching the "95%" required for a polished & general public ready experience needs nearly as much effort, often on tedious and time consuming tidbits.
For what it’s worth, Asahi do upstream a lot of changes to do exactly what you’re saying.
That’s a big reason why progress slowed recently because they were focusing on reducing their diff count.
A lot of stuff has landed in the mainline kernel, but Asahi is how they keep experimenting on new functionality.
I think there is also the added challenge that ARM macs are a moving target, and Apple has less than no desire to provide any kind of stability or support for Asahi Linux. Unlike the PC space where laptop manufacturers have to maintain broad compatibility over time, Apple will make future changes that are really awkward for Asahi and will not care one bit because they can do the compat work on their own software.
>I think there is also the added challenge that ARM macs are a moving target
Yes, but also no? Because I think a reasonable argument can be made that ARM Macs are like game consoles with a more rapid generation: yes there are changes between each generation, but then you've got millions of units which are good for a very long time that are all near identical. Apple definitely is not changing everything between gens at all, work they've done for M1 has been plenty useful since. And support stretches awhile. The final M3 generation chip only came out about a year ago (the M3 Ultra for the Mac Studio was March 2025).
So sure there's ongoing effort needed for newer systems, and that may require ongoing RE more then typical. I don't want to brush aside the effort there at all. But at the same time there doesn't seem to be the same long tail of hardware variations and dozens to hundreds of players doing their own little tweaks either. Aside from memory and storage, every single Mac of a given SoC is the same so each time one gets covered they all get covered and are a stable experience. It's definitely a different thing then developing for PCs, and I definitely wish there was and support serious legal backing for no rug pulls being allowed, ever. Hardware owners should always have access to the root of trust if they want it. But that aside, I don't think their efforts are wrong or somehow wasted just because each new generation might need some new work. That doesn't appear from the outside to be intractable, and fact is the pace of hardware change for computers has slowed and continues to slow. A system from many years ago can still be very good for most tasks... so long as the OS can still be updated and work. Apple themselves seem more then limiting factor there, whereas Linux shines in long term support.
The huge advantage of x86_64 isn't that it's a stable platform, but that the big hardware vendors maintain their own Linux driver. Nobody needs to reverse engineer how AMD GPUs work, you can just use AMD's driver. Nobody needs to reverse engineer how Intel power states work, just use Intel's pstate driver. Nobody needs to reverse engineer how Broadcom's WiFi driver works, Broadcom maintains their own Linux driver and contributes to the upstream brcm80211 driver. And commodity hardware that's not directly supported by the vendor typically has detailed data sheets, meaning that someone has to contribute a driver but no reverse engineering is needed.
Its more than that, its that x86 vendors know how to maintain hardware backwards compatibility, they don't throw out the entire USB subsystem every time a new phy/whatever shows up because there is a standardized mailbox interface sitting in front of the actual HW. Same with the core platform, which works out of the box using 25+ year old firmware standards that are flexible enough to support simple sensors and behaviors, like lid close notification on a laptop for example across multiple OS's. Even something as simple as the firmware interface for handing off a frame buffer to the OS isn't universally support on arm platforms because a significant fraction don't support uefi. Apple was an early uefi adopter, but whatever internal politics they have, means they tossed even that on the latest mac's.
From an end user perspective, I think the best thing the Asahi team could have done was solely focus on getting the M1 Air/Pro working 100% before moving onto other devices.
But that would probably result in burn out from the crazily talented dev team :P
Asahi focusing on M1 would also encourage secondary market sales of M1 laptops, which are already a primary competitor (see Apple marketing) to current Apple laptops. If Apple wanted to encourage Asahi Linux users to move from M1 or Qualcomm to M5/M6 Apple devices, they could improve device firmware compatibility with Linux, or contribute directly to mainline Linux.
Haha, I can't imagine Apple contributing open source driver code to mainline Linux.
My assumption is that if they ever decided they would provide support for Linux, it would be a private Mac-linux fork.
It's hard to imagine they would go the shim + blob route like nvidia as that would still require upstreaming stuff.
Honestly, they should just document their hardware so we can write our own drivers without hurclean reverse engineering efforts.
Considering that M1 and M2 are almost the same architecturally isn't that exactly what they are doing? M3 are two new contributors who decided they wanted that.
I'm not really sure what it would mean for M1 air/pro to work better at this point to be honest, other than I guess power consumption during sleep but that's supposedly a super tricky problem that can't be "solved", it can just be incrementally improved through immense effort. But the main problems I have on my M1 Pro now are just the normal Linux laptop problems: bad trackpad palm rejection, input latency, inconsistent scroll speed between apps, high latency tap to click, somewhat janky fractional scaling (at least in GNOME). These aren't really problems for Asahi to fix, I feel.
On one hand, yes they're a moving target, on the other, they're a lot more uniform than X86 machines.
X86 can also be a moving target now; with Windows's driver autodiscovery mechanisms, manufacturers that don't care about Linux could still make people's life hell.
> Unlike the PC space where laptop manufacturers have to maintain broad compatibility over time
LOL
If anything Apple is infamous for keeping around hardware blocks for as long as they can. IIRC the serial port driver for everything Apple ARM dates back to the very first generations of iPods.
Of course Apple will remain a moving target, but they are orders of magnitude more stable than everyone else in the non-x86 universe.
How does Ubuntu Linux on recent Qualcomm (ex-Apple Nuvia) Arm laptops compare to Asahi Linux on Apple Silicon?
Most people don't realize that the Asahi team ship features only once they work without quirks. For the set of supported hardware features, Asahi is much closer to a macOS experience than to an average x86 Linux laptop experience.
Meanwhile, Linux on my Lenovo X13s "works" but has tons of quirks: Boot fails 2 out of 3 times, the device hard-resets sometimes when waking up with a display connected, and the speakers are unusable due to lack of active overheat protection (and somehow this affects even external speakers). It technically works, but it's incredibly frustrating to use in practice.
If you plan to use Linux and don't need an ARM laptop, there's little reason to prefer a Qualcomm device over an x86 one currently. On the other hand, M1/M2 easily outperform a broad class of x86 laptops, and they have a Linux experience that's for many use cases close to on par with official vendor support.
Pretty rude to call this ex Apple Nuvia. I don't think any of those lawsuits by Apple or ARM have been won. Qualcomm declares this to be a new chip. But yes it has talent from those places. Still, let's not try to tip the scales of perception quite so indelicately?
I am curious what the boot situation is. It seems like Qualcomm actually has pretty good support for their cores. But since these PC systems sort of lack a bios, each one needing a hand built DeviceTree: it makes supporting them kind of a nightmare. Even a raspberry pi has a much more advanced and accommodating boot environment than these frustrating Qualcomm laptops. Alas. I don't know but I expect Asahi has to do similar hand tailoring. I am curious to know what the boot chain looks like! How much the system willingly helps vs how much hard to be bespoke hand coded system config! (Wish it wasn't like this, it's so bad)
Circular talent economy, https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/cpus/legendary-qu...
Seems like a good thing, no? People getting paid well to skip around and improve products across the board. A virtuosos cycle, as opposed to the cynical cycle of ruining one project and parachuting to the next.
Also keeps lawyers busy.
Without stirring the pot too much, I’m a bit out of the loop on what the above poster implied and you took slight to. Could you share a little more about this and why you feel what they said was rude?
There's nothing rude about it; the Nuvia CPU core is pretty much the entire selling point of the Snapdragon X Elite product family. Everything else on those chips is underwhelming. But the provenance of the CPU core is really irrelevant to the question of Linux support, which is gated by driver support for the rest of the SoC, which didn't come from Nuvia. So focusing on the Nuvia aspect is a bit of a red herring.
Qualcomm may be a tech company, but they behave more like a pack of lawyers (probably the best in the tech business at extracting money” double dipping”) they will never support Linux in any usable way, not without a huge ongoing fee/payola on their so called partners.
That certainly is what their past looked like!
And in many ways that probably is true. But it's not uninform. There's a lot of places where Qualcomm is clearly working very hard to get upstream, to get mainline support. https://www.phoronix.com/search/Qualcomm
I was super impressed with their work offloading sound to a USB sound card, to let the CPU sleep more. Really wild subsystem to build. And they did it! Kept at it! Really cool stuff to have in the kernel.
They've hired some good people for GPU support, which is rad. I feel like Qualcomm is so so close to having a great system people can genuinely love. But there's always some missing pieces, it's always an end result that is far far far quirkier and more difficult than a PC would be. Some of the other comments in this thread give me some hope that there is a more normal boot chain here at least, that it's other troubles. But it's hard. And Qualcomm only has so much power over what their OEM partners actually build.
Qualcomm is the only name in wifi right now for OpenWRT like systems. MediaTek looks good, is present too, but supposedly their drivers are just a total garbage fire, buggy & crash tastic beyond words.
I think it's important we reassess our old biases. And give some credit where due. Qualcomm has an absolutely forsaken reputation & their lawyerliness is a thing of legend, forbidding as heck. But there are also a lot of signs that at least some of the company is tired of making chips that are utterly unsupportable, and has some real drive towards good open source support. Thank you, warriors of light there.
Really hoping we see some Linux running Snapdragon X2 Elite Extreme units in the next 12 months. Looks like an amazing system! Good job engineering the new cores ya'll!! Amazing performance.
> bit of a red herring
It offers an A/B test of "similar" SoC performance and battery life (which users now expect from laptops), without a vertically integrated operating system that was also created by the company who designed the SoC.
Apple and ARM have sued Qualcomm over the Nuvia talent.
Qualcomm at its heart is a patent troll company. They and Microsoft actually deserve each other. Long-term their partnership will end in tears.
BecauseMicrosoft is at this time in different to the Surface computers they are all in on copilot. It is basically copilot or bust for Microsoft.
> these PC systems sort of lack a bios, each one needing a hand built DeviceTree: it makes supporting them kind of a nightmare.
Modern PC ARM systems like Snapdragon Elite X use UEFI and ACPI. This is actually what makes them difficult, because they're trying to operate in a "new world" while most ARM SOC IP and peripheral drivers work in the "old world."
The issue with ARM has never _really_ been early boot; yes, it's arcane and a pain in the butt on some platforms, but it really only needs to be done once - once your DRAM is trained and running (this is usually the hardest part) and you can load and jump into a kernel, you're set. Hypervisor / security processor driven systems like Qualcomm (and for that matter, Intel and AMD) actually make this even easier at the expense of openness, because the vendor blob usually brought everything up for you already.
The issue has always been hardware discovery and mutable device configuration. When ARM devices were first supported by Linux, they were mostly embedded devices with one configuration, ever. So, they used devicetree, which is a fixed structure for each board, defined before boot and provided by the bootloader.
Because of this, most SOC / platform / IP soft-core drivers were built to work with fixed, proprietary configurations and usually only tested against a single platform to start.
On the other hand, x86 devices have been forced to work as highly mutable, arbitrary combinations of hardware (Plug n Play) with dynamic reconfiguration using ACPI since the start, so the drivers for x86 peripherals have always had to cope with a completely unpredictable environment.
What this means is that there's a ton of effort required to transition ARM _peripheral drivers_ from the "devicetree" world where drivers took fixed arbitrary, proprietary key=value parameters provided by a magic blob at boot to the ACPI world, where everything is dynamic, scripted, and abstract.
I'd actually argue that Pi have the most hacked tooling on top of the "old devicetree way," which means they're the most set on it. Pi peripherals are usually configured at pre-boot time using devicetree overlays and their drivers usually don't support any kind of probing/autodiscovery. As far as I know there's no real plan to change this (and maybe there doesn't have to be; it seems to work for them).
Anyway, this is all to say: I don't think the issue with either system is the "boot situation," it's the "peripheral configuration situation." In this sense, Asahi are actually in a fine situation to use devicetrees, which they do, because basically all of the SOC peripherals are proprietary and there are a fixed number of Apple devices to target and the only external interfaces are existing hot plug standards (USB/Thunderbolt/HDMI/DP). Qualcomm are smart to have started to try to use ACPI, because their SoCs could be hosted on boards with standard peripherals configured in thousands of different ways, like all PCs. But, they're playing on hard mode because most of the existing ARM peripheral drivers weren't made to support this model.
While it's true that early Linux ARM devices where embedded and generally only supported a single configuration, they didn't actually use devicetree.
Originally, embedded Linux ARM devices used a board file with a platform bus and hard-coded device metadata. The bootloader had to pass a machine id which told the kernel which hardware you were running on and which board file to use.
You can see remenants of this in the kernel still, though it's quickly being removed. I'm actually working on a hybrid kernel with the goal of bringing modern Linux support (on an lts branch) to old MSM7x300 devices, like the Evo 4G Shift I intent to use a tmux console/cyberdeck.
On another note, ACPI/UEFI doesn't always give you a clean abstract surface to work with either. ACPI is notorious for building in OS checks into it's compiled bytecode to the point that Linux often lies to it about what OS is running.
I remember that era (and it's still present on some other architectures) - devicetrees were at least a huge improvement over compile-time board config!
> ACPI/UEFI doesn't always give you a clean abstract surface to work with either.
That's putting it lightly. I think the best abstraction would probably land somewhere inside the big gap in the board config headers -> devicetree --------------> ACPI complexity continuum, but I'm not sure it's possible to do that at this point in the game as both sides are so entrenched.
> ACPI is notorious for building in OS checks into it's compiled bytecode to the point that Linux often lies
The problem with ACPI in this dimension is that there's a bidirectional errata game: the bytecode tries to work around the OS and the OS tries to work around the bytecode.
Unfortunately, there was never a real version standard for the Linux firmware interface early on (the _OSI("Linux") debacle), so the only testable versioned ACPI interface is Windows. This means that Linux is basically forced to become a Windows ACPI emulator. I think there are political reasons for this (obviously the 90s and 2000s were a bad time for Linux/Microsoft coexistence) but also just some decisions that look like big engineering mistakes in hindsight - the historic allergy of Linux maintainers to any kind of specified or versioned interface aimed at anything but user land definitely strikes again here.
I think that the versioning/errata issue and the native code trapdoor are the two biggest issues with ACPI (and admittedly both are large enough to drive a bus through); otherwise it's a kind of nasty thing but it fills in nicely for a lot of much nastier ideas and covers a really broad problem space reasonably well.
This actually is the case for a few other competing Apple Silicon support projects that came and went prior to Asahi. Assuming you have a way to load code into EL2[0], it's fairly easy to bring up the main CPU and USB, plug in a bunch of external peripherals before boot, and say you got Linux running on Apple chips. Only true in the most literal case.
In contrast, Asahi is specifically doing all the challenging RE work that typically gets passed over in favor of flashy headlines. If anyone can get to 95%, it's them.
[0] Prior to the M1 Mac, Apple did not allow anyone but themselves to load EL2 code. The ability to load other OSes on Apple Silicon Macs is, strangely enough, an allowed use-case. Prior to this we had to rely on once-in-a-decade bootrom security bugs.
There was a nice task on 39c3 https://youtu.be/3OAiOfCcYFM
They do try to upstream and eventually just have Linux natively support Apple Silicon!
Why would any group want to take on a project which could be instantly killed by an external for profit entity? For now Asahi is left alone by Apple but that could change in a single day and the entire project is dead. It doesn’t seem like a productive way to direct the limited energy that distribution foundations have on hand.
Except there's no legal basis Apple could use to "instantly kill" the project.
Apple could change the platform/firmware to break Asahi if they wanted to. They could lock down the hardware to make it nearly impossible to install another OS like they do with iphone.
I mean so could any other hardware vendor?
No Mac in history has been locked down in the way you describe, and there's really no indication that Apple would start now. If they were ever going to, the ARM transition would've been the perfect time to do it, yet they invested engineering resources into adding support for booting non-Apple kernels into their bootloader.
They could of course release a new line of laptops or a firmware update tomorrow which locks down the bootloader and prevents booting non-Apple kernels. But so could Lenovo, Dell, HP, Samsung, Sony, or any other laptop vendor. Or Microsoft, Intel, AMD or Qualcomm could exert their influence, as owners of various parts of the ecosystem, to shift the PC landscape in that direction.
Most hardware vendors don’t make operating systems, so they are not incentivized to limit what software can run on the hardware.
For example, intel and AMD contribute a lot of code and engineering hours to open source projects because they WANT people to be able to run that software on their hardware.
What you're saying is true for phones too, yet phone manufacturers lock down their hardware to only allow it to run Google's operating system. The argument that "hardware manufacturers live by selling hardware and don't care what software customers run as long as it's on their hardware" clearly doesn't work.
But if you truly do believe that's a good argument, consider Microsoft's position. They wouldn't want you to run non-Windows operating systems and hold considerable power over the Windows PC ecosystem.
They could, but that wouldn't change that there's still no legal basis that jeopardizes anything that's already been contributed.
Sure, there is no legal issue with these contributions. The problem is why would a project like Debian spend a bunch of work stewarding the Asahi project when Apple can just make the project impossible to progress if they so desire? The Debian project already is strapped for resources to build their distribution and stewarding a possibly throw away project is probably not the best use of their time.
Your entire argument is based on a random hypothetical. Why should Debian steward any work if a meteor could collide with our planet and wipe out all life?
Are you making the argument that an extinction level meteor event is within the same realm as Apple deciding to lock down their hardware? It is called risk management, here is how it goes: The likelyhood that an earth ending meteor comes and destroys the earth is very very low and therefore Debian decides that they should still write software. On the other hand the likelyhood that Apple -- a for profit company -- locks down their laptop hardware like they do for iOS is much higher. Apple has a history of walled gardens and conceivably there could be profit motives to lock down the hardware. Given the risk, potential supporters of Asahi have to decide whether or not it is worth the risk of putting a bunch of time and money into the project.
> locks down their laptop hardware like they do for iOS is much higher.
Except you pulled this out of thin air. There's more evidence to support the earth will be wiped out by a meteor than their is evidence Apple will lock down their macOS hardware. Your entire argument is predicated on vibes.
> There's more evidence to support the earth will be wiped out by a meteor than their is evidence Apple will lock down their macOS hardware.
If you don’t think a for profit hardware company which also makes operating systems will never think about making it so only their software can run on their hardware, I don’t know what to say to you. They already do this with iphone/ios. It is possible they do with mac/osx. Im not saying it is guaranteed, I am saying it is possible. And I am also saying it is much more possible than a meteor wipes us out in my lifetime. If you disagree with that, fine.
I am pretty sure I will be vindicated by Asahi never being relevant.
> They already do this with iphone/ios
They launched this platform with those restrictions, they didn't add them after the fact.
> I am saying it is possible
It's statistically less probable than a meteor wiping life on Earth - so my point stands that that Asahi team would be more concerned with a rogue orbital than it needs to be about Apple locking down the Mac ecosystem.
[dead]
> I'm concerned that after all these years, it's still a separate project and not an effort sustained directly within the kernel mainline and mainstream distributions
What does this mean? Hardware support is rarely developed inside these organizations; what makes it seem like these groups would be a good home for this effort?
It makes sense to have a group of experts in a field (Apple hardware/firmware) contribute patches upstream, which is the exact system here. And Asahi have done an above and beyond job also maintaining their installation framework while carefully moving changes upstream as well.
Well, after a while, the effort of maintaining and improving M-series kernel support should be directly be done by kernel maintainers, not within a fork with periodic merges (maybe some Asahi folks should become kernel maintainers).
Doing so would enabled mainstream distributions to provide maintainable M-series builds, with all that entails in terms of stability, enabling choice, maintenance or security fixes.
The whole fork + dedicated distribution made sense at the start of the project since it provided a playground for quickly iterating and experimenting (which is a no-no to do directly in the mainline kernel or in a major distribution).
But Asahi is still the only Linux on Silicon option after all these years, which is a bit worrisome. Asahi should have been a cool but temporary initiative.
At some point, the project will lose momentum and for its accomplishments to last, it should be merged into the general effort, i.e. drivers maintained directly in the Linux kernel, and the userland stuff made to be easily packaged and shipped by mainstream distributions.
This is... literally exactly what they are doing?
Of all of the reverse engineering related Linux efforts (and most corporate Linux efforts), Asahi have been the most methodical and relentless about upstreaming changes into the kernel and all of their upstream intermediaries (freedesktop/Mesa etc.), specifically so it's maintained, even at the detriment of the project velocity and contributor health.
Asahi is explicitly not supposed to be a fork + dedicated distribution long term and over time, the delta between Fedora Asahi Remix and Fedora has grown smaller and smaller.
> Asahi is still the only Linux on Silicon option
What do you mean? There are non-Fedora Remix distributions which incorporate the "edge" Asahi changes, like https://ubuntuasahi.org . And again, as more and more gets mainlined, it becomes increasingly plausible that many distributions will be able to support Apple Silicon "out of the box" without much special consideration.
I would have been happy if all that happened like 3 years ago.
Now, it's 5 years in, the Asahi effort is losing momentum. Core developers are going on to do other things, significant chunks (3922 commits) are still not merged upstream and no major distribution has an official build.
Sorry, but in my opinion, the project is at risk of becoming a dead and unmaintained branch.
Don't get me wrong, the Asahi team did an incredible job on this bloody difficult endeavor, but now is time to properly merge it and not let it go to waste.
It is a dying quail effort doomed from the start if those three ex Apple engineers could get a license from Arm to design chips it is still baffling why no one else across the whole wide world didn’t follow in their footsteps. There is a Linux market.
I’m just shocked that it has not happened. With all the money flying around for AI data-centers you would think that this would be a more worthwhile effort?
Where is the European effort in this area? I would think it would be a natural for something to come out of the EU in this area.
I feel like more money would not have helped that much. Maybe it would have enabled a few of the devs to work on it full time, but I doubt it would have brought more people into the project.
I would indeed love the EU to step in but not in the way you are probably thinking.
I would rather see such effort being made unnecessary through a law forcing the manufacturers to provide enough information/specification or even code for alternative/after-market OSes to be viable on the devices they produced.
And also, if possible, mandate a degree of standardization (looking at you Android phones and ARM SBCs) enabling commonality of efforts when supporting a device class.
Like they say, "when you're 90% done you just need to take care of the other 90%"
The way mainline kernel development happens is that people work in their own fork and then send patches upstream, just like what Asahi is doing. The only thing that makes Asahi special is that there's so much weird bespoke hardware which requires special drivers. But nobody develops directly against Linus's tree.
What everyone is missing is any org who pays Ubuntu or RedHat for support is going to buy officially supported hardware from Lenovo, Dell, Framework or etc. Asahi is a cool project, but there's zero money in it.
as someone who has had several official asahi fedora remix updates break the boot up of a m1 mac mini, this is it. it’s just too damn risky. i’ve had it happen so frequently that i’m genuinely at a point where im considering retiring the machine for something more stable and less likely to break during an update and it’s not even like i used it for a GUI, it’s a headless machine.
i would genuinely advise anyone thinking about seriously using asahi to consider another machine for uptime and stability
That's the amazing thing about Linux. It's free and open source and not beholden to shareholders and having to have a fully fleshed out project that they can make money on. I have an M1 Macbook Air with Asahi running as the default OS. I'm very satisfied and happy with it, even though there's some things that could be better (eg. The battery draining 1%/hour while it's sleeping). I would much rather have Asahi as it is than not have it because it's "Not 100% feature complete". I don't really care that it's not polished enough for "general audience
I'm with you. This entire game has already played out in the iOS jailbreak scene.
What does "mainlined" driver development even look like?
It's disappointing that so much talent is wasted trying to support user hostile Apple hardware.
What is disappointing? Is that a three ex Apple engineers could get a license from Arm and design chips there’s got to be talent in Europe to do that and to also follow up and do something with Linux as a OS. It just baffles me why all this effort is spent trying to be a parasite on someone else’s chip the talent is there in Europe to go the full distance an offer something that isn’t dependent upon someone else?
I am rooting for someone to do something from the ground up in Europe. Maybe it’s gonna take someone that’s still in junior high, high school, or college who doesn’t know any better and is open towards breaking out of the boundaries.
[dead]
I really hope this project continues to gain momentum. Apple Hardware + Linux is the least fscked OS running on the best hardware. MacOS continues to be a tire fire with endless bugs and churn between versions.
You should give Framework a try. It's been a flawless experience with Fedora. And with the upcoming Framework 13 Pro, battery life and trackpad are expected to be on par (or in the case of battery, even better than macos)
No, battery life isn't on par.
The only way to get the battery life Framework advertised is on Windows' 'Ultra Efficiency' mode which cuts CPU performance by 25-50%, lowers brightness by 30% and deprioritizes everything in the background to such an extreme that responsiveness of those is measured in seconds.
It is not comparable at all to M-series or Snapdragon laptops happily chugging along at full capability and getting (compared to AMD / Intel) stellar battery life.
They're talking about the new model announced, with a larger battery and ARM architecture. Not released yet, I don't think.
The new Framework Pros are still x86, but the newest Intel generation appears to provide a substantial boost to efficiency.
Also, jumping on the LPCAMM train early creates an eventual path for ARM boards without soldered RAM.
They have a new type of core on these they refer to as a "low-power efficiency core", which is probably what is enabling these "feats", but as one of the parents to this comment points out we're comparing Windows configured in "Ultra Efficiency" mode to Apple Silicon MacBooks at most configured in Low Power mode...
Anecdotally, comparing to recent (but still older than these) generations of Intel chips I can run my M2 Max MacBook Pro with 78% battery health for longer (without any special considerations) than colleagues running their Windows Intel laptops in Power Saver mode, while performing similar tasks.
The new model is Intel or amd unless I missed something. They said in the video the battery life was entirely from video playback, which can be run on efficiency mode
My apologies, I don't know where I got the ARM architecture part from. I really want one of those machines, but I guess if they can't approach MacBook battery life yet I'm stuck on MacOS for now.
There is a framework mainboard being made by a 3rd party vendor
https://www.jeffgeerling.com/blog/2026/arm-mainboard-for-fra...
I think they said 22 hours of video playback in the video. If it even gets half of that for normal usage I'd be sold, the only thing stopping me giving it a shot is they are currently more expensive than the MBP and I'm not sure if they are worth it until the first reviews come in
It's hard to imagine it'll come close to the complete MacBook package and it'll likely be similarly priced.
- Screen
- Speakers
- The unbelievable trackpad
- Battery life
- GPU performance (Linux gaming on this would be amazing)
Correct, it's in pre order now. It is actually x86 though, not arm
I’m pretty sure macOS safari doesn’t execute JavaScript on background windows/tabs.
When I play Bitburner, if I want to run it in the background, I have to run the game on Firefox or chrome. It’s a shame because safari actually gives best performance by quite a large margin.
The new Framework 13 Pro is undeniably really nice and a huge step up from the earlier Framework laptops. But the sad reality is that x86 processors are falling behind in performance. The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H is a whopping 35% slower than the M5 Pro (15 CPU 16 GPU) in both single core and multicore benchmarks, while the Framework 13 Pro with the 358H costs about the same as the Macbook Pro 14 with the M5 Pro ($2200 each).
Of course, currently Asahi only supports up to M2, so if you really want Linux, the Panther Lake should still outperform most of the 4 year old M2 devices. It remains to be seen which of the following can come sooner:
* new faster chips come out that support Linux
* Asahi finally supports M5
Right now it seems that the former is more likely to be true. But we shall see.
> But the sad reality is that x86 processors are falling behind in performance. The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H is a whopping 35% slower than the M5 Pro
35% is the generational difference between the M4 pro to the M5 pro¹. Don't drink Apple marketing koolaid: this has less to do with x86 falling behind than it has to do with Apple using their stash of gold to outbid the intel/AMD competition out of the latest TSMC capacity.
An M4 Pro 12c gets 32731 out of TSMC's 2nm-E².
An AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 gets 35093 out of TSMC's 4nm³.
The true unsung hero of the "Apple M miracle" is TSMC, not ARM, and Apple mostly in the sense that it has the deepest pockets.
With the first M chips, anyone who could afford to wait 18-24 months was pretty much where Apple was at. This decreased to 12-18 months in the last couple years. Panther lake signifies that it could further decrease to 9-12 months.
¹: https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/6346vs6345vs7230vs6397v...
²: https://www.notebookcheck.net/Apple-M4-Pro-12-cores-Processo...
³: https://www.techpowerup.com/cpu-specs/ryzen-ai-9-hx-370.c365...
[dead]
I really want this to be true but for me its not close. Maybe its better on the new 13 but its still night and day between my mac book and my FW 16 that's about a year old. My macbook works for days without a charge. My FW last maybe 6-8 hours on battery.
Don't get me wrong. I do really enjoy my FW but the mac hardware is still number one for me. I'd really love is an ARM based FW. Though if I could wave a magic wand it would be mac hardware running pure linux with no caveats. I really love seeing what Asahi is building
I've run all 3 major OSes before. MacOS by far has the least bugs and kinda just works.
My variosu Linux adventures have always resulted in doing random patches for audio or screen incompatibility.
My windows days were plagued with battery issues.
I feel like most Linux ricers wishs for a MacOS-like experience, except with more customisation. (Which is entirely possible now with the ricing on Mac)
> My variosu Linux adventures have always resulted in doing random patches for audio or screen incompatibility.
This is the kind of dated argument that really makes me dismiss most of the critics. I was running xubuntu as my main desktop since 2010 at least, switched to Debian + nix + XFCE in 2022 and switched to full-on nixOS in 2024. I never had issues with audio then and had to go out of my way to "break" audio on NixOS when I wanted to try pipewire instead of pulse.
> feel like most Linux ricers wises for a MacOS-like experience
I've put together a Hackintosh once, tried for a few weeks as the daily driver. Aside from being able to use tools that dealt with real-time audio processing, there was nothing else I wanted to copy or bring to my Linux system. It cemented my opinion that most software developers that keep touting the "superiority of MacOS" never gave a fair shot at Linux on decent hardware and were just rationalizing their prior choice.
Earlier this year I built a new desktop and installed my normal Linux distro and the screen wouldn’t work after login. I worked on it for a day, still couldn’t get any desktop except a terminal.Tried a different distro, it booted but no matter what resolution or refresh rate, the display showed severe artifacts when scrolling. Tried to fix it for a few days, gave up.
I am not a Linux novice, I have been using every major OS for decades at this point, but I’ll be damned if I didn’t install Windows, decrapify it, and everything just worked. You can say I should have done more research on hardware compatibility or whatever, but I didn’t have to for Windows.
And I like how you complain most devs never give Linux a fair shot on decent hardware right after describing that you MacOS experience is a hackintosh. That makes a lot of sense.
> And I like how you complain most devs never give Linux a fair shot on decent hardware right after describing that you MacOS experience is a hackintosh.
I'm not saying that I was expecting to run a Hackintosh and suddenly get the advantages of Apple hardware. I am doing a pure software-to-software comparison.
There was no application in the MacOS desktop that made me feel like I was missing out on something. Of all the tools that I am used to use - emacs + developer tools, email clients, messaging clients, media players, media managers, browsers, the occasional office productivity - none of the MacOS counterparts had any significant advantage over what I have in a Linux desktop.
> I am doing a pure software-to-software comparison.
I would argue this is impossible at this point. Most of the benefits of the entire Apple ecosystem are about integration - Macbook Pros are the fastest machines with the best battery life because of the great hardware but also the software integration.
> There was no application in the MacOS desktop that made me feel like I was missing out on something. Of all the tools that I am used to use - emacs + developer tools, email clients, messaging clients, media players, media managers, browsers, the occasional office productivity - none of the MacOS counterparts had any significant advantage over what I have in a Linux desktop.
This isn't really comparing OSes is it? You're comparing software that runs on the OS. Every tool I have on my linux machines I have an equivalent tool for on Mac, or I use the same tool, but the Macbook with MacOS is a workhorse that I can trust to "just work."
I don't think desktop Linux is bad, not by any means, and there are reasons I still go to it first on my personal machines until something forces me to make a different decision, but I also get tired of Linux users telling all of us that our experiences are old and all of these issues are fixed when they're just not, even if that isn't Linux' or the distro's fault.
If you are willing to give the advantage to MacOS due to the integration with the hardware, then you should only judge Linux when provided on hardware from Linux-centric vendors like system76, Tuxedo, Starlite and Framework.
I understand the point you are trying to make, but I disagree with it. MacOS doesn’t claim to work on other hardware, Linux does.
If System76 said PopOS only works on their hardware, it would be fair to only evaluate it on their hardware. When SteamOS only claimed to work on Steam Decks, the only good evaluation way to evaluate it was on Steam Decks.
> MacOS doesn’t claim to work on other hardware, Linux does.
Who exactly is "Linux", and what specifically is the claim? It looks to me like you don't want to lose the argument on these grounds, but maybe you could still have a nice laptop with Linux on it that just works.
> Who exactly is "Linux", and what specifically is the claim?
Linux distributions have a set of claims for what hardware they work with, usually as minimum system requirements. Since they are the minimum system requirements the expectation should, within reason, exist that the OS will work if you meet or exceed those requirements.
I say "within reason" because no OS can promise that, minimum is not a forward looking statement and the newest hardware is often the hardest to support.
> It looks to me like you don't want to lose the argument on these grounds
Agreed, because I didn't make any claims that this direction of argument negates. Linux has a harder task supporting a broader array of hardware, that doesn't mean that every argument should compare it to MacOS only on golden/chosen hardware.
If you build a distribution that only claims it works on specific hardware, like SteamOS did, then I agree that's a valid comparison.
> but maybe you could still have a nice laptop with Linux on it that just works.
I'm sure I could, I never claimed you couldn't.
> MacOS doesn’t claim to work on other hardware, Linux does.
It's the inverse. You claim that Apple "just works" for you and that Linux doesn't. I am saying that if you want to lend credibility to your argument, you need to use hardware that has a certifying vendor behind it.
> MacOS doesn’t claim to work on other hardware, Linux does.
"Linux" isn't even an operating system. There is no entity in the world who claims "bring any Linux distro at all to any random assortment of hardware you happen to already own, it'll be great and we'll commercially support it!".
I didn’t make a single one of these claims.
I have installed different Linux distros in 4-5 devices in the last year, including a laptop with an Nvidia GPU and a random NUC off Aliexpress. In all cases everything worked out of the box after a fresh installation--and as far as I remember the situation was the same ~10 years ago, when I first started using it. There are hiccups here and there, but nothing I cannot live with. I do tech support for my girlfriend'd mac, and there are just as many small issues there.
All this wall of texts to say that, respectfully, when you write >Earlier this year I built a new desktop and installed my normal Linux distro and the screen wouldn’t work after login the issue might simply be that you are doing something very wrong and/or not following the proper instructions for whatever distro you are using.
I can only speak from personal experience.
But I've had multiple Lenovo laptops not work with Ubuntun or nixOS in multiple situations.
Any new yoga variants just always had trouble.
E.g. my yoga slim 7i had a keyboard issue in Ubuntu such that for the first minute, I can't use my keyboard. Had to change boot configbto use "dumb keyboard" or something
The yoga also had speaker issues in nixos as the drivers haven't been mainlined yet. It was onenof those 6 speaker (2 tweeter) setups. I had to download a random driver and chuck it in my nix config to get the subwoofers working.
I gave up after mic issues in multiple zoom calls or gmeet calls.
You can say it's all skills issue, but Mac worked first try.
Laptops notoriously have rare hardware with poor or non-existent drivers. For laptops, you do need to do research with Linux to make sure things outside of the CPU/GPU work.
And, of course macs work first try. Apple makes both the hardware and software, if it didn't work it would be extremely impressive. The fact it's working is expected, not exceptional or noteworthy.
> I have installed different Linux distros in 4-5 devices in the last year, including a laptop with an Nvidia GPU and a random NUC off Aliexpress. In all cases everything worked out of the box after a fresh installation
How interesting! This mirrors my experience with some of my devices, and not with some of my others.
> All this wall of texts to say that, respectfully, when you write >Earlier this year I built a new desktop and installed my normal Linux distro and the screen wouldn’t work after login the issue might simply be that you are doing something very wrong and/or not following the proper instructions for whatever distro you are using.
Ahh yes, the complicated instructions of writing the ISO to a thumb drive, running the installer, and trying to login after the installation is complete.
My sin was using a current gen nvidia GPU (a 5080) and a 4K monitor with high refresh rates. This unprecedented combo fails to make the transition from SDDM to Plasma Wayland with the latest (at the time) nvidia drivers baked into the distros I tried. Fortunately, I wasn't alone in this issue based on the forum posts across a couple of distros, so I can be confident that at least some others failed to hold it right as well.
Yes, using an Nvidia GPU is absolutely failing to hold it right. Nvidia has shit support on Linux and they do it intentionally, everybody knows that.
You can blame Linux all you want but there's nothing anybody can do except Nvidia. The whole thing is locked down, no distro or developer on Earth can save Nvidia users.
I can easily tell you a story of the same with the two OSs reversed. It's no longer 2016, pretty much every hardware worth their salt has good, or better Linux support, with the possible exception of some random RGB led not being controllable out of the box (though usually it's not out of the box either on windows). Like outside of desktop, Linux is the most prevalent operating system and it's not even close.
This wasn’t 2016, it was this year, and we are talking about desktop OSes (given the comparison to MacOS). If I wanted to run it as a server without a desktop environment, it would have been fine.
I don’t understand all the folks who crawl out of the woodworks as Acolytes of the Holy Linux Empire every time this topic comes up. Linux is a good desktop OS these days, it is my default, but I don’t have any problems acknowledging its issues and moving to another OS if it can’t meet my needs or if I have hardware/software that it has issues with.
This conversation started because someone said "I wish we could get a LInux system running on an Apple hardware, that would be the best of both worlds", and then the first response is to make a defense of MacOS, implying that MacOS would be the superior choice even if the Linux integration with Apple hardware was leveled.
What I am refuting is basically the idea that MacOS provides a better "experience" than a modern LInux Desktop installed on any reasonably conventional hardware.
I don't refute that are limitations on Linux. I am not saying that it will run everywhere flawlessly. But I am saying that the average college student, the average "web developer" and the average "elderly folk with basic computing needs" can have a good desktop experience without being forced to pay the Apple tax.
I can only speak from personal experience. But I've had multiple Lenovo laptops not work with Ubuntun or nixOS in multiple situations.
Any new yoga variants just always had trouble.
E.g. my yoga slim 7i had a keyboard issue in Ubuntu such that for the first minute, I can't use my keyboard. Had to change boot configbto use "dumb keyboard" or something
The yoga also had speaker issues in nixos as the drivers haven't been mainlined yet. It was onenof those 6 speaker (2 tweeter) setups. I had to download a random driver and chuck it in my nix config to get the subwoofers working.
I gave up after mic issues in multiple zoom calls or gmeet calls.
You can say it's all skills issue, but Mac worked first try.
Not giving Linux a fair shot is not something I'd categorise myself doing given how much I riced my dell xps back in the day.
>This is the kind of dated argument that really makes me dismiss most of the critics. I was running xubuntu as my main desktop since 2010 at least, switched to Debian + nix + XFCE in 2022 and switched to full-on nixOS in 2024. I never had issues with audio then and had to go out of my way to "break" audio on NixOS when I wanted to try pipewire instead of pulse.
Did you ever do any DAW ? Did you have to use is jackd ?
Stuff like streaming games from my desktop in a non native resolution is a no-go with Wayland. I can't do HDMI 4k/120 with HDR/VRR like I can on windows (I know it's HDMI fault, but that doesn't change the fact it doesn't work).
Oh and I've given up on using Linux for productivity a year ago - one can take only so many full browser crashes for simple stuff like desktop sharing, camera/mic stopping mid call.
I'm running linux on my desktop with about as vanilla hardware as you can imagine - the amount of compromises/stuff that just doesn't work is quite annoying.
It's just nowhere near the level of reliability of MacOS - that's why I use my air for productivity and I SSH into the workstation to do actual work in VMs (with all the recent supply chain compromises no way in hell I'm ever doing dev work outside of a sandbox environment).
I've never used a device that claims first party linux support so maybe it's better.
But honestly I'm not a fan of linux desktop in general - flatpack is nice in theory but comes with so many "gotchas" and installing stuff otherwise is just "here you have all the privileges of my user". MacOS sandboxing/security scoping feels way better for desktop use.
Dealing with real-time on Linux is an issue, yes. It has gotten better with pipewire but still far from MacOS.
Everything else I have it on pretty much "just works". I am not a big gamer, but Steam works. Bluetooth works. Wi-Fi works. It detects my printer and scanner better than my wife's windows laptop. No browser crashes.
NixOS is well supported on the Framework and on my workstation. The worst type of inconveniences I have nowadays would be things like what I had some weeks ago: Zoom wouldn't find an already-running process and would get stuck in a loop, solved it by running "nixos-rebuild switch --upgrade".
Compare that with the complaints that you hear from Apple users and the constant reporting on declining quality on MacOS and iOS, and you see why I take issue with statements like "most linux users want the MacOS experience, except with more customization".
MacOS has solved laptop suspend since the 2000s. Windows and Linux still struggle with this, especially due to the switch from S3- to S0ix-style sleep.
Modern Apple laptops seem less special now but you also have to look at them through the lens of their introduction.
A similar thing is true for Sonos. They don't seem all that special now, but you have to realize they have been offering multi-room synced audio with a good UX since 2006. That's before the iPhone even was released.
> MacOS has solved laptop suspend since the 2000s.
On Apple hardware. Call me when you put MacOS on any random laptop and get suspend to work.
Yeah, it's not that hard if the hardware is high quality and of small number of known types.
Windows and Linux is judged by whether it works on any hardware, including the so-cheap-it-should-not-have-been-produced-ever machines, that will obviously just plain suck. No amount of software can save shitty hardware.
I feel like Linux proselytizers are always talking about how Linux will revive or improve low-powered hardware, and that’s one of the reasons it’s so great. Then when it’s still a poor experience, the same Linux users say things like this, that no software can save bad hardware. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
Also, Linux expressly aims to run on a wide array of hardware, and macOS doesn’t. So Linux should be judged across a large range of hardware and macOS shouldn’t, in the same way a Jeep should be judged on its off-roading abilities and a Civic shouldn’t.
But then what is left to compare the two?
A supersonic airplane is not better than a bicycle, nor the reverse is true. They are just.. different and only marginally related.
Also, "revive" a device is more of a niche thing. What's more generally in line with linux's philosophy is it scaling down to embedded-like hardware, but also scaling up to supercomputers. Neither end is "a bad experience", and none of the other mainstream desktop OSs can even hold a candle next to it.
> But then what is left to compare the two?
Countless other things about the way they work and how they handle what you want to do with them? We're not comparing radically different things, I was intentional about my comparison of Jeep vs Civic: they're the same basic tool, with different applications and contexts where they shine. This isn't an airplane and a bicycle.
Not really - a Jeep and a Civic is pretty similar in use case still. The Mac would be more like a tram that can only go on rails vs perhaps a bus. If we want to make some useless comparison.
They are both personal computers? If anything it’s a Civic versus an Accord.
Hard to agree with those critics when the OS is doing the right thing, but the hardware won't play ball. The reason there's so much code in the Linux kernel is for various shenanigans that hardware vendors came up with. Yesterday I was looking at how HDMI audio is being implemented. From the specs, it looks quite nice with support for PCM and rates supported sent via EDID, but there's like 5 implementations for that one, 3 of them handling hacks by the GPU vendors.
Windows had working suspend to disk with Windows XP then they messed it up trying to get a more tablet like experience.
:/
the last time i tried changing the audio sample rate for an external dac on a silver blue based immutable distro it would reset every time i rebooted so no this is not an outdated argument. linux still has serious issues with the basics
Idk, I tried Linux last year and couldn’t get my USB wifi to work, even bought a new one that claimed to support Linux, and even tried an entirely new distro (went from Arch to Mint) and still had major problems. Windows handled it just fine.
That combined with a lack of good creative software on Linux kind of kills it for me. I’d rather use it than Windows, but MacOS seems like the best option currently.
In my personal experience macOS is fine but updates are often buggy or regress performance. Linux has just been the more polished option. Plus it just has a nicer desktop and apps.
I stay 1 major version behind with MacOS. If you do that you should have a pretty stable experience. You still get all the security patches but skip most bugs/regressions.
Linux got this philosophy made distribution called Debian. What kind of argument is that for OS experience and stability?
I stay 0 major versions behind with macOS and have a pretty stable experience.
I use macos because of the battery life and because I want a Linux like experience without wondering if some weird software a company update forces on us will work, like citrix desktop or their random vpn client. But for someone who spends most of their time in the terminal, and the rest of the time in a browser, macos has some really annoying quirks especially when it comes to window management
"entirely possible" is a bit of a stretch. You can install some hacky WM and sketchybar but system settings, workspace three finger scroll speed, the finder app, window chrome, login screen etc are not something that can easily be changed. And the default apps are really not that great for power users. Calendar, Mail and Finder are all slow, dumbed down and only very superficially customizable. I daily drive an M2 Pro MBP and I was running a Linux desktop up until 2 years ago and I felt like there were barely any limits to customizing the latter while I have to fight macOS at every step if I want to do something that apple does not want me to do.
Not a problem I have had on Linux.
Some people seem to get better battery life with Windows than with Linux.
Most users on any OSes are not ricers. Most of my customisation is functional - panels and widgets placed for practical reasons. A lot of people do not seem to customise at all, or barely.
Ricing is big, but I also like the hackability and development friendly environment of Linux that isn't there on Macbooks (been running MacOS as a secondary for ~5yrs now)
The difficult thing with Linux has always been finding well supported hardware. People always try to get it running on whatever random collection of hardware they have on hand and then are surprised that they have some problems. If you buy with Linux in mind you can get hardware that just works.
> MacOS by far has the least bugs and kinda just works.
MacOS is sometimes so weird and inconsistent that it's hard to tell whether it's a bug of Apple usual's "you are not smart/cool-enough to understand" kind of feature.
I'm likely not "most Linux ricers", but as a long-term desktop Linux user, I'm very bothered when I have to use macOS GUI, and explicitly want a non-macOS experience. (This is why I avoid Gnome, for instance.)
> My variosu Linux adventures have always resulted in doing random patches for audio or screen incompatibility.
Is that on Mac hardware? I run a 14 year old Mac Book Air, and it works flawlessly with the latest Nixos, and has done for the last 11 years.
If you have issues on random PCs, it's because there are an enormous variety of them out there, with all kinds of incompatibilities that have to be worked around. On Mac hardware, there tends to be a more restricted number of variants, and after a few years, Linux becomes rock solid on them.
So the OP is correct, Linux on Mac hardware is the best combo.
A 14 year old Macbook Air is an Intel Mac, AFAIK most hardware is pretty well supported.
M series Macs are still very much a work in progress. I'm typing this on one, in Linux, so plenty of things work, but not for example USB-C output to an external display, and a lot of the processor power level / suspend stuff is still not fully there so battery life is quite a bit worse, especially when suspended. I think the situation is rather worse on the latest generation hardware, too.
Did wifi work out of the box? I really struggled with a 2013 Air.
I think I might have used a usb ethernet to install it? It was 2017 the last (and first) time I had to re-install, so I don't remember.
Liquid Ass enters the chat, Apple can’t even make rounded corners anymore.
I was burned by the 2016 MacBook Pro keyboard, and once Liquid Ass was announced I knew it was time to get out.
Sold my MacBook Pro M2 Pro, which has a stupid gigantic notch that blocks the menu bar items with no built-in mechanism for getting to them when they overflow.
Now I’m on a Framework 13” and I’ve had zero issues with Linux. Everything just works. KDE Plasma is way more customizable than macOS or Windows. I’m finally able to ditch slow Homebrew and use a real package manager. I can finally play light PC games on my laptop without dealing with streaming or Crossover.
My preorder is in for the Framework 13 Pro, which looks to get even closer to delivering a MacBook Pro for Linux. Meanwhile, Apple hasn’t changed their chassis design in 5 years, while Framework updates their hardware constantly while maintaining cross-compatibility. A company with less than 500 employees is catching up to a trillion dollar corporation.
I’ve already got my fully modular LPCAMM RAM delivered and ready with no Apple tax. I’ll get better battery life watching YouTube videos than a MacBook Pro and the graphics are just as powerful as the M5 base chip.
And if something breaks I won’t have to deal with the nightmare I went through with my 2016 MacBook Pro.
Can macOS snap windows to the side yet without external plugins?
Yes.
Oh, nice, when I last tried it about the M1 timeframe, it still didn't.
What that convinced me of is that macOS is just not for power users.
They added it a few years back
MacOS is also optimised for M series chips in a way that realistically no linux distribution ever will be.
Definitely good to have the option, but you'll most likely never get quite the same performance or battery life on linux
I agree that MacOS is more polished. However overall, Linux is a better complete package - especially for power users, gamers and engineers.
Linux GUIs are _fine enough_ though the jank is still present. The good news is they will get better with more users entering the chat.
The thing to note is that, we don't want to confuse "it's not as good right now" with "It's bad so I will never use it" because that signals a lack of interest.
There is a non-zero chance that Apple could be compelled to support it if enough people express interest (historically, they have with bootcamp).
Competition is good, even if the competition is bad right now. We must encourage it.
Generally yes, but the community around MLX has rallied pretty strong. Sure your disk io is awful, and your OS is buggy, but at least ML compiles and works on a modern OS.
Works like rocm seem so close. But you need either the pre-compiled packages or 2+ year old Ubuntu to compile them. https://github.com/ROCm/TheRock/issues/3477
I'm still on Ubuntu 22 because everything works. Got enough packages that still request I don't use wayland that I don't want to risk an upgrade.
Sad because I really want the better One drive integration that Ubuntu 24+ comes with.
I sympathize. But it seems so weird to me to be a Linux open source adopter, who is also so am conservative. Heck yes KDE, sway, Niri, and so many other new desktops are so so so nice. I can't imagine staying in the old world.
But who should AMD for example target? It seems obvious to me. Personally I think if you are trying to make tools like ai acceleration software, you should 100% be focused on the alpha geeks. The people who want bleeding edge new stuff, the people who will take that and roll with it and expand your ecosystem are almost entirely the early adopters. The progressives are the social tastemakers, are the point on the adoption curve where cool and good happens.
It's infuriating watching AMD bungle their chances by targeting people interested in ancient technology, for their incredibly advanced powerful rich new stack. What are you doing?!?! There needs to be a starting point for the alpha geeks, those who are willing.
> But it seems so weird to me to be a Linux open source adopter, who is also so am conservative.
I used to be a tech enthusiast who installed the latest bleeding edge everything.
Now days I need a stable machine that lets me work. Sometimes my work is bleeding edge, but I want my machine to be boring and stable.
I can't run the latest open source models if I can't get my machine to even boot.
Also some of the latest AI stuff (desktop control, full screen recording, etc) doesn't support wayland. E.g. https://pieces.app/ prefer x11 due to the simpler security model.
I like this quote from warp people, on why they are open sourcing. Parallels to what I'm saying above even though it's a different matter:
> * we need to build our business by offering the best possible product to the most excited community.*
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47936612
TheRock is so close but there just doesn't seem to be an eye on the ball for actually making this usable. This stack of issues blocking even vaguely modern systems has been sitting untouched for months.
Having used a macbook air for work just recently… not the best hardware at all. I think I can spend 5€ and get a better keyboard.
There are fringes that have wacky and particular priorities, but not recognizing that you are such a niche and asserting that your silly requirement makes them “not the best” for the vast majority of people is silly
Sorry I wanted to mention a few hundreds other reasons but I thought it'd be too long.
When I think about it, I don't understand why Apple wouldn't want to help this effort and just provide all the documentation.
All the classic reasons ("competitive advantage", "secrets", etc) do not hold water in this day and age.
The real answer is probably simpler than anyone here is making it. Apple hardware margins are healthy enough that selling macbooks to linux users is pure profit, so no services lock-in needed. However, the moment they officially acknowledge Linux support, then it becomes a support surface. Every kernel panic becomes a genius bar visit. Every driver bug becomes a tweet at @AppleSupport. It's the value of plausible deniability. The Asahi team being unofficial is actually the best possible outcome for Apple in that they get hardware sales to Linux enthusiasts without any support burden.
> However, the moment they officially acknowledge Linux support, then it becomes a support surface.
Apple documents lots of things the genius bar won't help with. For example, Apple provides instructions for compiling custom builds of the XNU kernel. However, if you replace the stock kernel and your Mac kernel panics, the genius bar isn't going to help you. (Maybe they'd help you wipe the computer and restore everything to stock, but I imagine they'd do that if a Linux user walked in too, even today.)
I suspect Apple hasn't shared documentation because it would take time to prepare for external release (legal stuff, plus the need to avoid leaking future products). What I don't understand is why Apple hasn't made an engineer available to talk on the phone for a couple of hours a month. This would amount to a rounding error in their budget.
You’d need legal to sign off on that too.
They don't have to support it, just document the system or release their own kernel code. They don't even have to mention Linux.
They could anonymously drop off a package to the Asahi team.
That’s called support. We count that as support.
Jesus, no, that's not called support.
As used by commercial hardware and software vendors, "support" can mean anything from "we'll come fix it for you when it breaks, or your money back" to merely "theoretically, it should work, and we won't get in the way of you trying". Likewise, "unsupported" can mean anything from "don't complain to us if it doesn't work" to "we're going to spend significant engineering effort to prevent it from working".
A stance of "here's some hardware documentation, implement the drivers yourself" definitely falls within that spectrum of "support", and is the kind of "support" for Linux that some hardware vendors have in the past been lauded for, eg. when AMD started documenting their GPUs.
That level of "support" from Apple for running Linux bare-metal on Apple Silicon would be an improvement from the status quo, and in practice would probably be sufficient to get good drivers written and upstreamed in short order, given how much interest there is in running Linux on these devices.
We're talking about "people walking into Genius Bar expecting help with Linux" support. It's not philosophical discussion on what support is, there's literally a specific thing discussed here.
That's one of the several forms of support under discussion, under the specious claim that it would become the expected level of support as soon as Apple declared any level of support for Linux. But as the comments you're refusing to understand have explained, Apple could meaningfully "support" Linux in the form of providing hardware documentation, without making any promises to help any customers troubleshoot Linux running on that hardware.
They do release their own kernel code.
> Apple hardware margins are healthy enough that selling macbooks to linux users is pure profit, so no services lock-in needed.
What do you mean by needed? A lock-in is more profitable so is needed to maximise profits.
> What do you mean by needed? A lock-in is more profitable so is needed to maximise profits.
You can't lock-in Linux users because vast majority of them won't switch to macOS and ecosystem at large. This is simply a currently untapped market they could easily almost entirely own if they wanted to. With growing Linux popularity, extra 3-4% of the laptop market share is nothing they can ignore in front of shareholders.
I am not convinced they would "entirely own" the market - they have a small range of hardware. Even less so in the long term. That extra few percentage points would be a lot less profitable as they would only have the margin on extra hardware sales so would not add much to profits - not enough for shareholders to care about.
It also risks existing users switching to Linux which could be a huge loss. Apple has a very loyal user base how do not try anything else and the last thing they want to do is risk encouraging them to try alternatives. Losses could be quite significant: if an existing user switches to Linux not only might you lose software and services sales, but you also risk losing future hardware sales (longer replacement cycle, and no barrier to switching to other hardware).
> I am not convinced they would "entirely own" the market - they have a small range of hardware. Even less so in the long term. That extra few percentage points would be a lot less profitable as they would only have the margin on extra hardware sales so would not add much to profits - not enough for shareholders to care about.
I am aware of that, but there's another factor here: accelerating Windows users switching to Linux on Apple hardware. Those Linux MacBooks would be killer devices that nothing in Windows world can compete against! I mean we can all agree the tech social media would go bonkers over that, wouldn't it? If a couple of YouTubers were able to bump those Linux numbers significantly and spearhead gamers questioning their choices, imagine the dent Apple would make. I am absolutely certain Apple would gain couple extra percentage points with Apple on Linux devices within first year and make Microsoft shit their pants in the process.
> It also risks existing users switching to Linux which could be a huge loss. Apple has a very loyal user base how do not try anything else and the last thing they want to do is risk encouraging them to try alternatives.
Aren't you contradicting yourself here a bit? If they're very loyal, there isn't much risk of them switching, is there?
But yeah, Product Cannibalization is always a risk, though it doesn't mean they couldn't actually embrace Linux and offer ecosystem integration there. iCloud integration? Sure, why not? iPhone integration? Why not? Apple TV app? Again, especially to attract those Windows users making a switch, who are much more used to paying for services and software?
Heck, they could even port AppStore over and improve Swift's cross-platform compatibility, especially considering Swift is fairly cross-platform already. I doubt many software products wold get ported, though. Besides, macOS AppStore is not a huge earner for Apple, considering the platform is open, unlike iOS, so macOS users switching to Linux don't have to imply a significant loss of income from ecosystem spending. Also, many loyal macOS users would likely dual-boot and be happy to continue to buy and use macOS-exclusive software as needed.
This isn't unrealistic, I seriously think it's a matter of time when those numbers start making sense for Apple. Also, if US administration changes, both US and EU regulation bodies will be back on Big Tech asses and for Apple to open to Linux to say "hey, we're pretty open" is another win.
> Aren't you contradicting yourself here a bit? If they're very loyal, there isn't much risk of them switching, is there?
That needs clarification. They are loyal because they do not try anything else and often make assumptions that other OSes are worse than they actually are. They often assume a lot of features (e.g. shared clipboards across devices) are Apple only. They will not take the risk of buying non-Apple hardware to try another OS.
> Product Cannibalization is always a risk, though it doesn't mean they couldn't actually embrace Linux and offer ecosystem integration there. iCloud integration?
It reduces the lock-in the have with existing customers. Having that lockin over the whole stack is what keeps them in the ecosystem.
> Also, if US administration changes, both US and EU regulation bodies will be back on Big Tech asses and for Apple to open to Linux to say "hey, we're pretty open" is another win.
I have less faith in the regulators than that. The push to open has never been that strong. No-one has challenged things like limiting software installation to the app-store, and Google is confident enough that no-one will to be switching to the same with Android in a few months time.
> Besides, macOS AppStore is not a huge earner for Apple, considering the platform is open, unlike iOS, so macOS users switching to Linux don't have to imply a significant loss of income from ecosystem spending
Not yet. They have the option of gradually making "side loading" harder (for our own security, of course) and increasing that profit.
Well, agreed on all points. I guess the conclusion is time will tell, but I am sure Apple is legitimately looking into this on some level, especially since Steam is doing so well and keeps expanding Linux user-base.
I would be great if they did do it so i hope you are right.
> the moment they officially acknowledge Linux support, then it becomes a support surface
untrue. There are no obligations from other hardware vendors, yet you can sometimes get good drivers from them, or at least specs. I think Apple indeed want their hardware to fade out to enforce buying another. Imagine that 20% of your returning customers no longer return after 3-5 years of planned obsolence
No, selling laptops to Linux users is loss of services revenue, which is currently at 25% of total Apple takes and ~40% of all profit.
I am baffled by how people commonly parrot that flawed logic. Hint: by not seeling those laptops to Linux users they're not making money at all, neither on hardware nor on services.
By selling laptops to users who will never spend on highly profitable recurring revenue stream Apple would be depleting precious Ram stock for tiny one time profit.
So you're suggesting company would rather not sell a product now but rather wait until a "proper" Apple customer is ready for an upgrade? Product that has a significant profit margin upfront?
Also, have you heard about Apple's multi-billion RAM contracts they sign every few years to lock in the prices and supply?
It has already been reported Apple ran out of parts for NEOs. M4 minis are sold out. High end Mac Studio configs have been cancelled. Yes Apple does feel the crunch.
Little to no monetary benefit, hardware changes now need to be documented for Linux, loudest and most critical users but smallest volume.
And risk of loss of control on the software ecosystem.
This is the big one IMHO. Apple is all about control of the stack, top to bottom. Any sort of "help" with linux on macos would be threatening to that control. Apple "helped" even more than I would have expected by not locking alt OSes out of the bootloader. Probably for less than altruistic reasons, but they did do it.
loss of control, fewer services sales w/o their built-in upsells etc… tragedies
Go team Asahi!
> Little to no monetary benefit
A 1-3% of the market out of the 5% that Linux already is, is little to no monetary benefit?
Apple has many easier ways to win 1-3% of 5%.
Many? Really? Do share some examples, please, on how does Apple easily sway Linux users?
EDIT: I now see what you said: I meant 1-3 percentage points out of the 5%, but I am sure you actually know that.
I don't know if that's true. Linux users are curious and will try more stuff but people mistake that they file bug reports (and usually detailed ones...) with complaining more.
Apple's MO is that it's their baby. End of. They don't do open. Their compiler is closed source, and so on.
One of the reasons I can see is it’s much easier to say “we don’t play this game” than get a lot of negative press for selective openness and breaking compatibility of non-public interfaces. Maybe it’s even more important internally, as it enables new kind of internal discussions distracting from priority work.
They are operating under a patchwork of NDAs. It would take some effort to determine what they can disclose.
I imagine the real reason is that if they change things they now have an obligation to promptly share technical docs and if they're slow people will whine and bitch online about them. Not worth it. They have zero to gain (and I say this as someone who would love to dual boot Linux on my M4).
Plenty are whining now and that doesn't seem to bother them. I mean, this is one of the largest companies in the world. This is the company that once told people they were holding the phone wrong. I can't see them being particularly more bothered by people complaining in a slightly different way.
so they don't care about users, they care about themself?
Apple's whole thing is hardware + software working together. Endless other options available to Linux users. They'd also need to be prepared for people bringing laptops to stores with hardware problems that aren't running macOS. Again, more burden for Apple for no gain other than winning over a couple of dozen users.
Do you seriously think someone who installed Asahi is gonna walk into a genius bar and ask for help with it? And often enough that it becomes a burden??
And according to their stats page that sibling linked it’s more like a few tens of thousands of users.
I think a more accurate statement is that they don’t want to take on the outsized burden relative to the number of users it would actually affect.
I’d love to dual boot Linux too but I’m under no delusions about being a very small segment of the Mac population.
It feels very close to “right to repair”. The coffee grinder you bought came as a single package but it has burrs, gears, machine screws, a motor, etc. If one of those components fails, we should be able to replace it ourselves and as such they should be documented.
The laptop has various pieces of hardware in it and corresponding drivers in macOS to make them tick. Did we buy the hardware and the drivers as an inseparable package, or should we be provided with the manual to make one component work when the other breaks, be that either third party trackpads or third party (Linux) drivers.
Apple might argue that drivers, unlike gears or motors, will never wear down and fail. They won’t need repairing so you don’t get to know how they work. Does right to repair only apply to products that could ever need repairing? Does it also extend to knowing how your purchased product is built so that you could repair it?
Maybe we’ll see a test case some day when a cosmic ray blows out /System/Trackpad.kext and a litigant applies to a court for the documentation to repair their laptop — to write their own driver!
(Or vice versa: a manufacturer of coffee grinders arguing in court that they are exempt from right-to-repair because they repair their machines for free at their Genius Espresso Bar.)
This is an interesting thought exercise. I immediately thought of the counter argument that Apple's driver quality is worse, especially for laptops nearing end of life (for the sake of argument assume this were true).
Could I then submit a warranty claim and demand Apple replace my aging laptop with their latest model?
Hmmm, both my grinder and espresso machine are quite reparable with parts you can order from the manufacturer. Very much unlike my iphone…
I think there is a strong case that "the right to repair" includes software. If that doesn't mean drivers must be open source, it should at least mean hardware is documented such that a driver can be written from it.
But the US still doesn't have the right to repair hardware, haha.
I hope the EU is listening. They won't get far with their sovereign software push if hardware cannot be used. Even on the Android side, you can't write an alternative to Android because all of the hardware has locked bootloaders and hidden drivers. Good luck reverse engineering the hardware/drivers on a Samsung Galaxy - let alone an iPhone or MacBook.
I was trying to come up with a response but you're right. It would be easy for Apple and Apple would get so much goodwill from the community in return.
They get more public goodwill from a single ad. The chronically online Linux-using engineer community is too small to matter.
Looking at: https://stats.asahilinux.org/ there is still a pretty large userbase who are so interested in it they go this route. I imagine that count would easily 10x if it would be officially supported. Those numbers are nothing to sneeze at.
I'm running asahi on my macbook. And never touch OSX. I wouldn't even had gotten it if asahi wasn't so well supported.
And let’s be honest, they still wouldn’t be satisfied. The goal post would move to something else. Why don’t my AirPods seamlessly handoff to my Linux MacBook?
I doubt that. The developer community is what made the MacBook predominant in every tech organization. Before that Macs were mostly popular in the creative sector.
Developers build many of the applications that make the platform desirable. Steve Ballmer at least seem to get that part. ;)
The developers for their platforms. Which, crucially, Linux developers are not.
Apple Macbooks support virtualization of Linux on MacOS.
That's a low bar. Microsoft does too, with a much better hypervisor.
Yes, Linux developers are officially supported by both Apple and Microsoft, with Microsoft developers being a major contributor to upstream Linux and WSL2 having grown into a capable Linux development environment.
[dead]
> Focus is about saying no to 100 good ideas so you can pursue one great idea.
Important context to understand why.
If they think macOS is one great idea, that's a terrible misjudgment.
And yet it’s incredibly popular and successful. Windows is also ass, and the year of the Linux desktop is perpetually a few years away.
Being the least bad doesn't make something good. macOS is the least bad choice for the majority of people that just want a machine to mostly browse the Internet, look at their photos, do some light productivity work, and participate in their ecosystem. It also arguably hosts has the best software options for creative work (although that's reaping the fruits of seeds planted long ago - not sure there's much about macOS that makes it inherently better for those tasks these days). For development, its advantage is the hardware it's running on. To achieve any level of customization or to define my own workflow that isn't what Apple wants me to do or to work across multiple systems, I have to fight macOS rather than work with it. Linux on the other hand does what I tell it to do.
I’ve been using macOS because its creative ecosystem for decades. And over the last 10 years, it’s started to be apparent to me this is an expensive and unstable place to be. It will not be a place where tools find longstanding stability measured in decades. It is and will be a place where various sandcastle taxes are periodically assessed so the particular vision of the platform as a novel current luxury experience will be reinforced, and developers and users will be asked to keep pace on the treadmill and smile.
Linux as a desktop OS for the vast overwhelming majority of people is a far inferior option. It just is, and always has been. Even for developers, MacOS doesn't prevent you from getting your job done and getting paid, while using arguably the best laptop hardware. Shit just works and stays out of your way.
If all MacOS has going for it is better hardware, someone would have stepped up and shipped a better linux laptop ages ago. God knows I'm not going back to a flimsy creaking chassis, shit screen, and horrible battery life just so my Docker container doesn't have to run in a VM.
The cynical take is that they make a shit ton of money from services and Linux running on a MacBook won’t help them do that.
The vast majority of people that buy Macs for the ecosystem aren't going to switch to Linux. That market will remain untouched. Outside of a few gamers who might want to put up with the x86-to-ARM translation layer and (for most A to AAA games) Proton to run some non-Mac games. And even they'll probably still dual-boot.
There's a portion of another market: people who want to run Linux and want a powerful laptop who buy x86 Laptops right now. Apple could expend very little relative effort while offering no official support by helping Asahi get that to a first class platform. They won't capture them in the ecosystem (and they never would have) but will still benefit from hardware sales to them.
Obviously, if they sold their hardware at a loss and subsidized that with ecosystem capture that would be a non-starter. But from everything we know, the hardware itself is very profitable.
Yeah, and having the only supported OS be MacOS means they can entice people to upgrade when they want. No continuing on with 8+ year old hardware and a lightweight Linux distro even if it's fine for the intended use case.
They do also make a lot of money selling hardware, and as things stand today that business happens to make them look like the first tech giant to actually profit from the AI boom (because the hardware they've been developing internally for years happens to be among the best consumer-grade options for self-hosting LLMs). Making their hardware more attractive to tinkerers could be a winning move right now.
This, but also you would be allowing people to learn Linux. Developer with a Mac has to be one of the most common linux defectors. I suspect most people don't realize how doable and comfortable the switch can be.
It’s been my experience that developers running Mac already know how to use Linux and actively choose to use Mac. Unless the company is forcing it at least.
What's cynical about it? Surely you understand what the purpose of a for-profit company is.
Linux users don't pay for anything anyway
They pay for the hardware that they run Linux on. Apple's hardware division is very profitable without the "value" adds they run through their ecosystem, and those people never would have bought into the ecosystem whether they used MacOS or not.
I think the biggest value Apple gets from Asahi is they can point EU regulators at it as proof the Mac isn't a closed platform that should be a designated DMA gatekeeper. They don't need Asahi to be complete, they just need it to exist.
> I don't understand
We really need to retire this phrase, it’s become a humblebrag way of calling the other party delusional without even trying to understand.
The list here though is long: priorities, accuracy concerns, blurring the line on official support, IP restrictions with third parties (even Apple uses plenty of licensed cores), etc.
I don't see it that way. It's just the GP poster saying that they don't get it. Usually that means the GP poster isn't experienced enough to understand the rationality. So I generally assume the GP poster is simply naive.
> > I don't understand
> We really need to retire this phrase, it’s become a humblebrag way of calling the other party delusional without even trying to understand.
My dear friend I thought I was alone on this hill. It brings a tear to my eye, to learn I will not die alone.
"Amaze, amaze, amaze!"
I wonder if there would be interest in an Asahi Remix spin focused on a more Mac-like out-of-the-box experience: cmd as the main modifier key, Mac-like keyboard shortcuts, theming, gestures, etc.
Of course, you can tweak any distro however you want, but I think a curated default experience is a different thing.
Cmd as a “main” modifier?
Ok typical X/Wayland setups, Cmd is already the main modifier for DE features, while Ctrl is the modifier used at an application level.
There would be a lot of weird overlap with changing that.
> while Ctrl is the modifier used at an application level.
DE features don't matter at all outside of cmd-tab and whatever the equivalent of spotlight is. The application level is the main modifier, and changing them all to cmd is essentially impossible at this point. A detail Haiku got just about perfect, I think.
Either way, ctrl as a gui modifier is a dealbreaker for me. It also breaks the use of readline keybindings for text entry.
I’ve had the same thought and would love this. MacOS shortcuts are too deeply ingrained in my fingers.
But every attempt of mine to make Linux shortcuts Mac-like has had too many sharp edges to be useable. Toshy didn’t seem to work well with Wayland and felt heavy. Probably the best so far I’ve found has been keyd and custom configs for your most used apps.
A community effort might get us there. Distribute the hours of tinkering across many passionate users instead of everyone doing it in a vacuum.
I've managed to get close enough w/ kde. I just asked claude code to implement it for me, and it web searched and built config files.
Cmd as main modifier is lost battle. I've tried it multiple times. In the end just accepted ctrl life and sold my last macbook.
Nice to see M3 support coming along as they work their way through the upstreaming backlog and improve tooling:
> finding their way into the Asahi kernel tree are patches to enable more hardware on M3 machines. This includes support for PCIe, MacBook keyboards and trackpads support, the SMC-based RTC and reboot controller, and the NVMe controller, courtesy once again of Michael Reeves and Alyssa Milburn. This brings Linux support for the M3 up to roughly the same level as the first Asahi Linux alpha for M1!
It will probably be barely useful by the time M6 launches!
Given they first discussed starting the M3 work in the February progress report, I'm less pessimistic.
The real challenge is the significantly different GPU and Asahi no longer has Alyssa on their side.
I wonder if the hardware or the software will be the first to make a dream dev machine happen - a MacBook Pro + Linux experience
either Asahi gets there from the software side or Framework gets there from the hardware side
These kind of project reports showing consistent breakthroughs and clearly a finger on the pulse of what users are encountering as pain points are a good indication that the Asahi team are real pros :)
Look forward to switching back to Asahi full time soon!!
While I love Asahi as such and am really blown away by the effort, my setup requires an encrypted ZFS root file system, which is unreasonably hard to achieve with a Mac.
The fact, that there has to be a macOS partition for maintenance ruling out ZFSBootMenu somehow is very unfortunate - but I've accepted it.
Maybe the new Framework 13 Pro will be at least in the region of an alternative... :-/
I’m curious, broadly, what is involved with this. I just got encrypted (LUKS) BTRFS root going on my two Asahi machines and it wasn’t _terrible_… but also definitely not easy.
Well... I'm never using BTRFS again, see [1] for why - disclaimer: This is a personal opinion, not a recommendation. Since I switched to ZFS, everything is awesome ;) Besides creating zarch[2], I recently noticed that there is weird stuff happening in some of the used components, so I switched to CachyOS, which contains a ZFS Kernel and a good enough installer to get started with encrypted ZFS root. And I think they are also working on ZFSBootMenu integration, but I don't find the link right now :-)
1: https://forum.cgsecurity.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?p=39143#p3...
2: https://github.com/sandreas/zarch
M3 support nearly at alpha is fantastic news, and I'm really looking forward to M4 in the future. I am not looking forward to whatever Apple has planned this year for macOS, or next.
I run Asahi (the previous release) on an M2 Air and it works great except for high power drain when sleeping.
I still want to run it on an M3 MBP so it's nice to hear progress on that is happening.
Do you use a docking station and an external display?
I don't. I never got into external displays because I travel a lot and write code in strange places.
Not OP but external display only works via HDMI directly atm (m2 mb pro).
The mentioned light sensor started malfunctioning on my work's m3 after upgrading to tahoe. After a sleep it sometimes dimms the screen at max. Thankfully I have the monitor control app which brings it back for me. Such unneeded and faulty mechanism.
Really hope that by the time all my M4 Macs are no longer updated by Apple I can just switch to Asahi and get a 1:1 compatible OS in terms of supporting all the hardware my Macs come with.
It's always sad to think what more can be achieved / how faster we might've arrived at M3 support if Asahi Lina is still active.
Lina got the happy ending. She moved on to apply her talent to bigger and better projects - the real tragedy is how many years of volunteer effort were wasted by Apple's opaque documentation.
I'm glad such talent moved on to work for companies that care instead of wasting their talent.
Intelligence comes in many forms. This decision is one of them.
Does somebody know the power values for idle and sleep for this release? When I tried Remix 43 on a m2 mb pro 1 month ago the idle power usage was above 5W (max 10h) and sleep roughly 3W (~20h).
I really dislike Mac OS.
When is Asahi likely to be viable as a daily OS?
I'll put it to you like this: if the current state is not viable for you, then it's possible that it will never be ready.
Fair enough.
I think I'm going back to Linux when this laptop is no longer functioning.
Maybe I'll be returning to Lenovo.
Fascinating project like always. Thank you Asahi team!
Is anybody running Linux headlessly on the m4 mac minis successfully? I'm seeing them flying around used now at tempting prices...
Asahi is still in the early days of m3 support. It looks like there is zero m4 support, so I doubt you can even boot on one yet: https://asahilinux.org/docs/platform/feature-support/m4/#m4-...
I doubt it too, but I was hoping to hear from someone who'd tried it. I don't care about peripherals, even booting it without the storage with a serial getty would be useful for me.
Thunderbolt would be a great addition, its a showstopper right now for many
Yeah I think if they manage to solve that then we're gonna be cruising. I want to but can't really run AsahiLinux as it stands, my workstation is Thunderbolt-based and that's non-negotiable.
I got into Linux because it gave me things I couldn't get with Windows/Mac (in 1994). There are less things that is true for now, by far. I am drawn to the ideals of Free Software (maybe BSD style, maybe GNU style) like a moth to the flame. Nonetheless, I have a smartphone, which since 2016 has been an iPhone.
Now there are things I can't get with Linux that I value with macOS. The integration with the phone is just not possible if am running Linux. The power management and convenient things like Apple Music, too.
I was disgusted to see Tim Cook abase himself before Trump and spent a while researching alternative phones. I did not find anything that looked like a serious option. There are things I need that are only available for iPhone or Android, it's become table stakes for life nowadays. My E-car charger required an app to function, for instance.
I admire people who "vote with their wallet" and/or suffer inconvenience for their ideals. But I am not going to install Linux (or OpenBSD) on my M1 Macbook pro. It's too essential for me the way it is.
For the record, I pour a lot of time into my 2014 macbook running arch and a thinkpad running OpenBSD, and keep an arch server/desktop running pretty much 24/7. I spend tons of time trying to find/devise things on Linux to match things I use that are closed-source/apple only.
Hats off to people who can program at the level required to make this happen. It's beyond me. And also to those trying to make Pine Phone etc a realistic option. I think that's the most important free software battleground now.
[dead]
Is there an equivalent of this for iphones so we can give them a second life?
Unfortunately iPhones have locked bootloaders that prohibit installing other operating systems. People have gotten Linux running on iPhones, but it requires jailbreaking and that has gotten much harder over time. And it's not really worth putting effort into developing an OS if nobody is going to be able to install it.
You can run Android on an iPhone 7 as a demo, but not for any practical benefit: https://projectsandcastle.org/
Running what exactly? Older iOS versions? Android?
Linux.
Asahi for the MacBook Neo, that would be a killer combination.
Unfortunately no word on mainlining the external display support.
Does anyone knows if it runs on M4 Mac machines?
It runs only on M1 and M2. M3 is being worked on.
https://asahilinux.org/docs/platform/feature-support/m4/
Thanks! That is a good page for me to monitor!
I am both a monthly supporter of the Asahi project and a full-time macOS user. Why? I love to support hackers. But I am also a realist and have given up on the idea of a linux laptop that "just works" and have embraced teh first party experience of the wholly integrated software and hardware experience of the apple ecosystem.
am I just a smooth brained dumb dumb that has drunk the koolaid? perhaps. but I don't lose sleep on it and am not tinkering with hardware, or software anymore, I just get stuff done now.
> But I am also a realist and have given up on the idea of a linux laptop that "just works"
I mean, if you only use laptops that are explicitly unsupported by the Linux kernel then I could see what gave you that impression.
I had a P14 Thinkpad for work and had all sorts of issues with Wayland and streaming and what not. There's no issues on the Mac side things just work.
Does it have a dGPU? My simple Intel iGPU Thinkpad hasn't had any noticeable Wayland-related issues in the past 3-4 years.
This is the delulu Linux world thinking all over again. “Just get one with no dGPU, just this chipset, just this and this escoteric thing” and you’ll be fine.
This is how macOS works, too. "Just buy this M.2 adapter and this transcode card but not that GPU" and your hardware will be supported for two major releases.
It was until Apple silicon. Now it's "Just buy a Mac, or an iPhone[0]"
[0]: https://x.com/khanhduytran0/status/1954724636727587237
The chip has a ton of rancid built into it what GPU are we buying to do what?
> The bulk of the installer is written in Python
Well that's a weird choice of systems programming language.
It’s an installer script, why not choose Python?
Correct error handling is hard in Python.
[dead]
[dead]
[dead]
I'm glad they dropped the ban on HN readers[1]. That was my very first impression of Asahi Linux that I ever encountered and it's unfortunately what I think of every time I see it show up here.
[1] https://github.com/AsahiLinux/AsahiLinux.github.io/commit/e0...
Because they got a lot of trolls and Apple fans. The decision was not made lightly.
Honestly, knowing what I know about marcan, the decision was probably the result of an overwhelming/strong emotional reaction.
Not to just shit all over him or anything, but it really sucks to see someone who is genuinely top-ten-on-earth when it comes to "real hacking" struggle so much with socialisation and mental health.
It is weird to blame the victim for reacting to being harassed by a mob. That is a normal thing to have a reaction to. Perhaps rather than blaming people's social skills and mental health, we should instead blame the culture that normalises harassing people on the internet, even to the point of suicide (as happened in byuu's case). You are basically advocating that it is better for individuals to change to accept a shitty society as a given rather than advocating for society to change to be less shitty.
Marcan was clearly mentally unwell. He delusionally thought there was some harassment mob after him. After the fallout with Linux kernel devs, the lolipedo accusations, and him being outed as the vtuber Asahi Lina, he arguably did the correct thing: deleted every social media account and abandoned Asahi Linux. I hope he stepped away from screens and spent some time outdoors.
I'm genuinely unfamiliar of the harassment campaign that HN launched against him.
(I am familiar with some comments debating the validity of Byuu/Near's gender identity, and marcan's extremely strong reaction to that, but no actual harassment campaigns)
This is not a dichotomy. It's not healthy to take random online comments to heart so much. It's also bad to make such ridiculous comments. Both can be true at the same time.
This diminishes what "random online comments" are. They aren't just text on a screen. They represent words that another human being has said about you. Often, words that will convince other human beings, who may take different actions or view you differently because of what they've been told, which will in turn spread virally and alter how thousands and thousands of humans see you and act towards you.
Humans are a social species. It is easy to say "just don't be social bro". When you are actually the victim of this behaviour, it is much less easy to shrug off. Having a bunch of people hate you and say horrible things about you hurts. That's not abnormal. That is perfectly normal. Is it good for your health? No, in the same way that somebody smoking next to me is not good for my health, but it's not my fault the person next to me is smoking. The blame rests with them. To some extent, yes, stepping away from the smoker is a short-term fix, although often an unpleasant one that impacts your quality of life in other ways (what if the restaraunt you like is full of smokers, what if the airport is full of smokers, etc). In the same way society eventually changed to discourage smoking around other people, we really, really need to change the culture around the internet, to recognise that the internet is actually a social environment, that there are real people on both sides of the screen. "Go touch grass" implies that the internet is not the real world, but it very much is, with real consequences, even if you can't see the other person.
I agree it would be much better if online culture improved, and I don’t think anyone would argue against that. The difficulty is that change at that scale tends to be slow and unpredictable, on the order of decades, so you can't rely on it in the short term.
Because of that I think there’s value in focusing on what individuals can control, like setting boundaries, disengaging when things get overwhelming, or stepping away from spaces that become unhealthy.
That doesn’t mean the behavior is acceptable, or that people should just tolerate it. It’s more about acknowledging that, while broader change is important, taking steps to protect yourself is the only immediate and reliable option.
> The belief that this will happen is also a malicious fairy tale to tell to people.
Cultural change is possible. It is not something that will happen, no. But it is something that can happen, if enough people choose to make it happen. Making it happen starts by pointing this out and not blaming the people on the wrong end of this behaviour.
This kind of thinking reminds me of my truly most loathed thought-terminating cliche of all time, "life's not fair", as a justification for supporting some horribly unfair status quo. True, life isn't fair, but humanity has collectively spent an unbelievable amount of effort doing all kinds of things to make it slightly more fair, one step at a time. We can make it more fair. That's what we do as humans. We bend the world to our collective will.
---
seems the comment I was responding to was completely rewritten while I was writing this. oh well.
You are derailing this discussion by keep moving it to: "This is what the world should be like", and no one is disagreeing with that here. This is not what anything I said is about.
> and no is disagreeing with that here. no one.
The very first comment I replied to was insulting the victim's social skills and mental stability. This is the exact opposite of what is needed to reach "what the world should be like". Positive progress is not inevitable. It does not happen by some fate of the universe, where if we just wait things will naturally improve and life will get better. When positive progress does happen, it happens by humans consciously choosing to act in ways that make the world a better place rather than in ways that do not.
>The very first comment I replied to was insulting the victim's social skills and mental stability.
Dude, the very first comment you responded to was itself a response to someone who suggested that the frankly unhinged HN "ban" was a decision that was "not taken lightly".
They literally stuck a comment into the site banner suggesting that HN comments critical of Asahi or their devs was part of a Kiwi Farms targeted harassment campaign trying to take advantage of HN's SEO.
I don't know why you're continually upholding this fantasy, referring to marcan as a "victim", or pretending that somehow the problems of the world would all magically be solved if everyone only said positive things about other people all the time (communities like this 100% dysfunctional), but it's fucking strange and naive.
> that the frankly unhinged HN "ban"
It was not a ban or anything that could even possibly be misconstrued as one. People are talking about an overreaction, but the real overreaction is here on HN. This had literally nothing to do with the topic of Asahi Linux's progress report, but somebody intentionally dredged up a year-old subject with an outright deceptive and extremely hyperbolic framing for the sole purpose of shitstirring.
> pretending that somehow the problems of the world would all magically be solved if everyone only said positive things about other people all the time (communities like this 100% dysfunctional)
This is not even remotely what I said. The issue at hand is people mobbing to personally attack and harass individuals. Earnest criticism is one thing, but there is absolutely nothing constructive or productive being accomplished by the way people are behaving on this subject.
> It was not a ban or anything that could even possibly be misconstrued as one.
That is correct. It was just a rant, really, and even then not even a long one.
> This is not even remotely what I said.
Can you clarify what you're trying to say, then? AFAIK nobody on HN is harassing marcan, Byuu, the Asahi devs or anyone else in that sort of vauge circle. We're making comments about how they might behave or present themselves publicly, and some of the comments are definitely negative - but there is no coordination or intent to belittle or anything of that sort. Just internet bitching.
(and I am open to counterexamples if you're happy to share - have people been emailing marcan personally to say "I'm from HN and you're a piece of shit"? I wouldn't be surprised if people on Kiwi Farms were doing some of that.)
This marcan person had problem with Go, he had problem with Apple fans, he had problems with linux committers, so much he left internet or something. To say everyone but marcan was wrong is just a kind of fanboyism and it hardly helps marcan.
This person liked to dish out as much as next person but display extreme reaction when served.
Being harassed by neckbeards would drive anyone insane
No it actually wouldn't. As in 15+ years of Hacker News I have not seen the same so clearly it can be so horrible that it regularly leads to such strong reaction, suggesting that for most people this isn't nearly so impactful. And very few things described could actually be called harassment, mostly it was light criticism or maybe a bit trolling.
The guy appears to have a fragile ego. Any criticism and he goes nuclear, as if he was never told "no" as a child. Sure you can have opinions about the best way to moderate comments, but I can't imagine thinking I was special enough to publicly demand how Hacker News should be run. I've worked with people like this, not fun!
I don't think having a strong ego on this forrm is any more laudable. I think I come back for the people trying to build stuff for no reward
Hacker news also attracts those already driven insane. Virtually none of us can socialize normally or have healthy human values
Again, wildly incorrect and just the old 'nerd' stereotype.
I never called hacker news residents rapists; that was your implication.
[flagged]
I am not sure how what happened can be considered "being outed", the vtuber's puppeteer was obvious from day one to anyone who was paying any attention at all, it is just that a lot of people decided to uphold the kayfabe. (And I don't blame them, at least before the lkml crashout it was a pretty fun character.)
While there is overlap between vtuber communities and HN, the culture is quite different. When one does come up, it is eternally September on HN. In vtuber communities/culture, the persona of the vtuber is treated as entirely separate from the person behind it, even in cases where it's exceedingly obvious (e.g. someone leaves an agency to work independently).
At the very least, it is rude to disseminate, draw attention to, or even speculate aloud about the identity of the person behind the avatar. Typically it's considered harassment/doxxing (I believe this is because vtubing culture is largely derived from Japanese idol culture, which appears to be structured around dealing with stalkers). That is to say, "upholding the kayfabe" is a bare-minimum of respect.
I could see why people on the Asahi team considered HN to be a host of harassment, considering even a cursory search of HN turns up comments "compiling evidence" about Asahi Lina's identity (including one still-up comment that straight-up links to Kiwi Farms, which is almost certainly done for purpose of harassment). I'm not sure if Hacker News ought to be moderating comments that deconstructs pseudonyms where clear effort has been made to separate it from the person behind them, but I also empathize with not wanting to be linked to accordingly.
I do not understand why people would rather play into the delusions of a clearly mentally unwell individual for months and year on end — when they well know it's bullshit — under the guise of this somehow being in the interests of said individual and/or being fun. This, to me, is the height of selfishness clocked in disingenuous empathy.
The widespread normalisation of this behaviour, and the subsequent ~~thought~~ now real policing around the issue, is a clear mark of a deep societal ill.
> is a clear mark of a deep societal ill.
And calling all of society ill because of a vtuber is not overly emotional? How enlightened
[dead]
[flagged]
How is that a ban?
Genuine question: can't LLMs be used to accelerate this project?
Probably for tasks that are laborious to do, but easy to verify; not sure what percentage of such work is at hand here.
Genuine answer: sometimes. I've done similar levels of reverse engineering. Keep in mind that LLMs, and all other AI, "think" as they are programmed to. When you need to do something they don't know how to do, because you're the first person in history to do it, it turns into a lot of hand holding. Especially when you're dealing with physical devices that can explode if misprogrammed, I've found it's best to keep them working on the lower hanging fruit.
LLMs are not super well suited for this kind of task.
They've really strict policy on LLMs. They pretty much don't allow using them, because the slop so much in this kind of region.
[dead]
Nothing is stopping you from using LLMs when contributing to their project (I think). One reason might simply be that they would rather spend the (very sparse) donation money on anything else but tokens.
https://asahilinux.org/docs/project/policies/slop/
They do currently ban LLM-assisted submissions. To be honest, even if LLMs are technically capable of writing code that assists the project, this at least helps keeps the 'floodgate' closed for certain low-quality PRs that other open-source projects are getting.