| ▲ | cromka 13 hours ago |
| Just imagine what Apple would do to the market if they also offered a full Linux support, but not Windows... They'd probably own some 70% of Linux market outright and also double its overall size overnight. |
|
| ▲ | eloisant 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| They already cannibalized a lot of Linux users, developers mainly when they released MacOS X around year 2000. Suddenly you could have a Unix, with pretty much the same CLI as Linux but without all the supported hardware/driver issues. Laptop sleep in particular was pretty finicky. If MacOS didn't pick a Unix/BSD base, I'm pretty sure all the tech companies running Mac would be on Linux. |
| |
|
| ▲ | layer8 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Apple wants to make money with services, however, and buying more devices in their ecosystem. Full Linux support would counteract the lock-in. |
| |
| ▲ | cromka an hour ago | parent [-] | | I thought about it , but cloud is getting way more expensive since they don't own the infrastructure, while they themselves have long term components contracts that actually help to increase their margin on their hardware. So they're most likely gonna make more money off of hardware going forward. And nothing stops them from offering integration with other devices, effectively all they lose is potential income from AppStore on macOS, which doesn't sell much anyway. The more I think about it, the more it makes sense to me! |
|
|
| ▲ | beAbU 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| If apple came out with their own linux distro, with open drivers and a mainline kernel... A girl can dream! |
| |
| ▲ | starkparker 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The memory that XNU and Darwin are technically open-source projects is a curse that brings one only suffering. | | |
| ▲ | p_ing 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | I would call them open access. Apple doesn't accept contributions. | | |
| ▲ | bigfishrunning an hour ago | parent [-] | | Does not accepting contributions make you not open source? I would assume if the license allows you to fork it, that makes it open source (as opposed to "shared source" licenses that basically say "look don't touch") |
|
| |
| ▲ | kylec 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I feel like Apple wouldn't want to make full Linux work on their hardware, but they could enable their Darwin kernel to emulate Linux syscalls and provide a way to boot into a mode that basically loads the kernel and whatever Linux shell you want | |
| ▲ | pjmlp 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | This path is already taken and it didn't sell Apple hardware in masses. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MkLinux | | |
| ▲ | beAbU 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | MkLinux was first released in 1996, and discontinued in 2002. I would argue that things have changed significantly since then. | | |
|
|
|
| ▲ | pjmlp 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Don't need to imagine, it did not take off, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MkLinux > Reception was mixed, focusing on the difficult installation process and the significant performance costs of the Mach kernel. Reviewers noted its potential as a "Unix killer", but that it required users to abandon the user-friendly Macintosh experience for a pure Linux environment. |
| |
| ▲ | kingstnap 12 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | 1996 is not now. This comparision makes little to no sense. I'm sure if Apple provided support for installing your own OS on their M series laptops it would be incredibly popular. And I don't need to guess at this using weird 1996 research on microkernels because Asahi Linux exists and clearly there is interest in it. | | |
| ▲ | pjmlp 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | Indeed, Apple from 1996 would not released Tahoe, most likely. We don't need research because QNX, L4 and many others on embedded space do exist as well. | | |
| ▲ | mhurron 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Do you forget what Apple in '96 was? Or are you saying that Tahoe is too polished for the Apple of '96? Apple was not a bastion of quality in the 90's. They couldn't modernize the Mac OS, and that continued with little more than window dressing over what was released in the 80's. The Mac line up was a horrible mess of barely different models that needed a Ph.D to figure out what was different. The company was bleeding money and seriously close to bankruptcy. The Apple of the mid 90's wishes it could release something like Tahoe. | | |
| ▲ | pjmlp 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Yes the 1996 Apple was on the edge of bankruptcy, yet Mac OS 8 was definitely much more polished than Tahoe. |
| |
| ▲ | ribosometronome 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Apple circa 1996 would be charging for its updates and licensing out the software to Power Computing and UMAX. They were making a lot of "interesting" decisions. | | |
| ▲ | pjmlp 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | They still are doing lots of interesting decisions, the difference is that now the piggy bank is full to care of them going badly. |
| |
| ▲ | officeplant 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Rip Blackberry Phone + QNX, you were so promising for such a short time. |
|
| |
| ▲ | fsflover 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > difficult installation process and the significant performance costs So it was a failure in implementation. | | |
| ▲ | pjmlp 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | And the Apple that delivered Tahoe will do better? | | |
| ▲ | cromka 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | All they would need is to provide complete DTBs and some drivers, no need to write a new OS from scratch. |
|
|
|
