Re:Would you be willing to fund a Linux port to Apple Silicon?
by nightski on Sunday November 29, 2020 @09:36PM
(#25250219)
I didn't mean to imply it was Apple's fault Windows did not run on M1 (in fact it has been shown that Windows ARM64 does run natively on M1 albeit through a patched QEMU due to lack of driver support), but by designing a custom SoC they have abandoned the approach which would afford them the most compatibility (staying with x86). This may have been the right direction for them, but it's not the same approach as before and definitely abandons compatibility in favor of better performance.
Second while Gatekeeper has been around for 8+ years, the default of contacting an Apple server on every program launch was new (or so I thought) with Big Sur. It's a step towards that direction. People could not launch apps when this server was down.
Re:Would you be willing to fund a Linux port to Apple Silicon?
by spacedcowboy on Sunday November 29, 2020 @10:00PM
(#25250347)
Nah, gatekeeper has been doing the remote check thing for years (just, 2 of them, I think).
It only became noticeable because there was an oversight in the "fail-fast" algorithm. If Apple was available, it was assumed it would be fast, and it wasn't when there was an iCloud outage.
It's just business: Apple won't intentionally remove features that makes their hardware more attractive. It's where they make most of their money.