At one point when I enjoyed using Apple hardware I had PPC software. The switch to x86 was supposed to be seamless. Emulation was eventually taken away, however.
I'm not up for trusting Apple through another CPU change. Thankfully I've switched to a Thinkpad running Linux. Even more rugged and honestly works a bit better than MacOS these days for me.
Expensive Macs are already well behind inexpensive PC specswise. Moving to ARM is going to be put Macs even further behind. There is simply no way that any ARM CPU can measure up to Intel and AMD x86-64 CPUs.
There is simply no way that any ARM CPU can measure up to Intel and AMD x86-64 CPUs.
Their phones already outperform many PCs. You're delusional if you think this is a step backward. It's going to be sad day for Intel when these hit without the restrictions of them being in a phone.
Intel will still sit pretty because only the walled garden idiots will buy the walled garden hardware
The Arm-based Macs will not be âoewalledâ.
1. A Walled Garden Mac doesn't need a packaging format with dual binaries-support. The Mac App Store can take care of that on download.
2. A Walled Garden Mac doesn't need an Intel Translator. The Mac App Store can take care of that on download.
3. A Walled Garden Mac doesn't need XCode that can emit anything but BitCode. The Mac App Store can take care of that during download.
But since at least two of those capabilities were discussed (and one of them demonstrated) during today's demo, I'd venture to say that the possibility of a Walled Garden Mac (which has been predicted for over a decade, now) is between nil and none.
But since at least two of those capabilities were discussed (and one of them demonstrated) during today's demo, I'd venture to say that the possibility of a Walled Garden Mac (which has been predicted for over a decade, now) is between nil and none.
Perhaps not *yet*, but the difference between today's 10.15 and previous versions with regards to openness is MASSIVE. For the last few versions of MacOS there have been increasing hurdles to running non-apple approved.apps. First it was a warning, but you could set Gatekeeper to let you run anything. Then it would still complain even if you said "anywhere" but you just needed to say "Okay", then the option for Anywhere went away and so you had to right click and say Open. Now in 10.15 it REFUSES to open a
But since at least two of those capabilities were discussed (and one of them demonstrated) during today's demo, I'd venture to say that the possibility of a Walled Garden Mac (which has been predicted for over a decade, now) is between nil and none.
Perhaps not *yet*, but the difference between today's 10.15 and previous versions with regards to openness is MASSIVE. For the last few versions of MacOS there have been increasing hurdles to running non-apple approved.apps. First it was a warning, but you could set Gatekeeper to let you run anything. Then it would still complain even if you said "anywhere" but you just needed to say "Okay", then the option for Anywhere went away and so you had to right click and say Open. Now in 10.15 it REFUSES to open any program that's signed BUT hasn't been notarised. (This application is DAMAGED and should be deleted... yeah fuck you apple) You can still open unsigned stuff and you can turn signed binaries into unsigned if you know what you're doing, BUT Xcode doesn't make it easy to generate unsigned.app bundles anymore so distributing apps even amongst your own machines got significantly harder. I have a.cpp program I hacked together from much googling that binary patches your.app back to being unsigned. Apple's provided codesign tools DO NOT allow you to do this. They claim you can, but it doesn't work and it's been a known bug since the beginning of Catalina. So how much longer until you can't open unsigned code anymore? You've always had to pay for a $99 developer license to run code on an iPhone, and they're as close to requiring that for MacOS as makes little difference.
It's abundantly clear the direction apple have been going and it's hard not to see things like Rosetta 2 and such as anything more than a temporary concession until they are confident they'll get away with the final push to a closed eco-system. Look at the workarounds you have to do to make stuff work that sits outside of Apple's rules. They have been getting increasingly hacky as time goes on. First an option in a dialog, then a hidden flag, then a command line program, then a 3rd party utility...
They are not doing this to suppress non-App-Store code for control over the user. It is in service of the laudable goal of protecting Normals from themselves.
But it seems like in the latest version of macOS, it is still a simple GUI command to open any Application from any source, signed or not:
And Apple has never removed backwards compatibility from their systems after their transitions were complete, ever. You can totally still run 68k classic apps on your Intel Mac, right? You can totally still run PowerPC fat binaries on the latest OS, right? You can still run 32-bit x86 apps on the latest OS, right?
Wrong on all counts. It may not be a totally walled garden experience like iOS, but you are still at the mercy of the tyrants in Cupertino.
Yeah, because Apple doesn't have the ability to willfully prevent you from running software it doesn't want you to on today's macOS, right?
Hint: go ahead and try to get an Nvidia GeForce 1080 working as an eGPU on 10.14 or above. You cannot, because it won't load unsigned kernel modules, and they refuse to sign the drivers Nvidia wrote and posted on their web site.
Yeah, because Apple doesn't have the ability to willfully prevent you from running software it doesn't want you to on today's macOS, right?
Hint: go ahead and try to get an Nvidia GeForce 1080 working as an eGPU on 10.14 or above. You cannot, because it won't load unsigned kernel modules, and they refuse to sign the drivers Nvidia wrote and posted on their web site.
Fool me once. (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not up for trusting Apple through another CPU change. Thankfully I've switched to a Thinkpad running Linux. Even more rugged and honestly works a bit better than MacOS these days for me.
Re: (Score:0)
Expensive Macs are already well behind inexpensive PC specswise. Moving to ARM is going to be put Macs even further behind. There is simply no way that any ARM CPU can measure up to Intel and AMD x86-64 CPUs.
Re: (Score:-1)
There is simply no way that any ARM CPU can measure up to Intel and AMD x86-64 CPUs.
Their phones already outperform many PCs. You're delusional if you think this is a step backward. It's going to be sad day for Intel when these hit without the restrictions of them being in a phone.
Re: (Score:0)
Intel will still sit pretty because only the walled garden idiots will buy the walled garden hardware.
Re: Fool me once. (Score:3)
Intel will still sit pretty because only the walled garden idiots will buy the walled garden hardware
The Arm-based Macs will not be âoewalledâ.
1. A Walled Garden Mac doesn't need a packaging format with dual binaries-support. The Mac App Store can take care of that on download.
2. A Walled Garden Mac doesn't need an Intel Translator. The Mac App Store can take care of that on download.
3. A Walled Garden Mac doesn't need XCode that can emit anything but BitCode. The Mac App Store can take care of that during download.
But since at least two of those capabilities were discussed (and one of them demonstrated) during today's demo, I'd venture to say that the possibility of a Walled Garden Mac (which has been predicted for over a decade, now) is between nil and none.
Re: (Score:2)
But since at least two of those capabilities were discussed (and one of them demonstrated) during today's demo, I'd venture to say that the possibility of a Walled Garden Mac (which has been predicted for over a decade, now) is between nil and none.
Perhaps not *yet*, but the difference between today's 10.15 and previous versions with regards to openness is MASSIVE. For the last few versions of MacOS there have been increasing hurdles to running non-apple approved .apps. First it was a warning, but you could set Gatekeeper to let you run anything. Then it would still complain even if you said "anywhere" but you just needed to say "Okay", then the option for Anywhere went away and so you had to right click and say Open. Now in 10.15 it REFUSES to open a
Re: (Score:2)
But since at least two of those capabilities were discussed (and one of them demonstrated) during today's demo, I'd venture to say that the possibility of a Walled Garden Mac (which has been predicted for over a decade, now) is between nil and none.
Perhaps not *yet*, but the difference between today's 10.15 and previous versions with regards to openness is MASSIVE. For the last few versions of MacOS there have been increasing hurdles to running non-apple approved .apps. First it was a warning, but you could set Gatekeeper to let you run anything. Then it would still complain even if you said "anywhere" but you just needed to say "Okay", then the option for Anywhere went away and so you had to right click and say Open. Now in 10.15 it REFUSES to open any program that's signed BUT hasn't been notarised. (This application is DAMAGED and should be deleted... yeah fuck you apple) You can still open unsigned stuff and you can turn signed binaries into unsigned if you know what you're doing, BUT Xcode doesn't make it easy to generate unsigned .app bundles anymore so distributing apps even amongst your own machines got significantly harder. I have a .cpp program I hacked together from much googling that binary patches your .app back to being unsigned. Apple's provided codesign tools DO NOT allow you to do this. They claim you can, but it doesn't work and it's been a known bug since the beginning of Catalina. So how much longer until you can't open unsigned code anymore? You've always had to pay for a $99 developer license to run code on an iPhone, and they're as close to requiring that for MacOS as makes little difference.
It's abundantly clear the direction apple have been going and it's hard not to see things like Rosetta 2 and such as anything more than a temporary concession until they are confident they'll get away with the final push to a closed eco-system. Look at the workarounds you have to do to make stuff work that sits outside of Apple's rules. They have been getting increasingly hacky as time goes on. First an option in a dialog, then a hidden flag, then a command line program, then a 3rd party utility...
They are not doing this to suppress non-App-Store code for control over the user. It is in service of the laudable goal of protecting Normals from themselves.
But it seems like in the latest version of macOS, it is still a simple GUI command to open any Application from any source, signed or not:
https://support.apple.com/guid... [apple.com]
So, Right-Click and choose "Open" from the Contextual Menu. Sounds pretty simple to me...
And this is absolutely as bad as it gets, even in the latest versions of macOS. Still a wholly
Re: (Score:2)
And Apple has never removed backwards compatibility from their systems after their transitions were complete, ever. You can totally still run 68k classic apps on your Intel Mac, right? You can totally still run PowerPC fat binaries on the latest OS, right? You can still run 32-bit x86 apps on the latest OS, right?
Wrong on all counts. It may not be a totally walled garden experience like iOS, but you are still at the mercy of the tyrants in Cupertino.
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong on all counts. It may not be a totally walled garden experience like iOS, but you are still at the mercy of the tyrants in Cupertino.
Oh, please!
No one forces you to use a Mac. So GTFO.
Re: Fool me once. (Score:2)
Yeah, because Apple doesn't have the ability to willfully prevent you from running software it doesn't want you to on today's macOS, right?
Hint: go ahead and try to get an Nvidia GeForce 1080 working as an eGPU on 10.14 or above. You cannot, because it won't load unsigned kernel modules, and they refuse to sign the drivers Nvidia wrote and posted on their web site.
Fuck you, not a walled garden.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, because Apple doesn't have the ability to willfully prevent you from running software it doesn't want you to on today's macOS, right?
Hint: go ahead and try to get an Nvidia GeForce 1080 working as an eGPU on 10.14 or above. You cannot, because it won't load unsigned kernel modules, and they refuse to sign the drivers Nvidia wrote and posted on their web site.
Fuck you, not a walled garden.
1. Launch Terminal.
2. Turn of System Integrity Protection (SIP):
https://macreports.com/how-to-... [macreports.com]
3. Install any fucking unsigned KEXT you wish. It's your funeral.
Or, if you just want to disable the KEXT-Signing requirement of SIP:
https://stackoverflow.com/ques... [stackoverflow.com]
This looks like a better method for whitelisting a particular Developer's KEXTs:
https://eclecticlight.co/2019/... [eclecticlight.co]
If any of that's too hard, you shouldn't be doing it. Or ask any Hackintosh owner. They use these methods to install their "patches".
BTW