Why would Apple writing some Linux drivers wipe billions from its share price? You can already install Linux on a Mac if you really want to. Back in the day, you used to be able to install Windows on an (Intel) Mac, and that didn’t seem to have any such effect.

▲

philistine 2 days ago | parent [-]

You still can right now.

▲

renticulous 2 days ago | parent [-]

Do Apple provide the necessary technical details for others to write it? I think wasn't that the complain with Asahi effort?

▲

philistine 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Well, I was more talking about the fact that you can still install Windows 11 on an Intel Mac right now; the drivers are still there for those few Intel macs still supported.

As for Windows on ARM, I'd bet that if Microsoft had managed to figure out their own product, Apple might have been tempted to support it. I mean why go through all the trouble of developing the most advanced firmware on the planet to support a fully secure macOS next to an unsecured OS if you do nothing with it?

	▲	alwillis 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		> As for Windows on ARM, I'd bet that if Microsoft had managed to figure out their own product, Apple might have been tempted to support it. That was totally up to Microsoft [1]. [1]: "Craig Federighi: Native Windows on M1 Macs is 'Really up to Microsoft'" — https://www.macrumors.com/2020/11/20/craig-federighi-on-wind...

▲

foldr 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

No, but I think it’s unlikely that Apple actually has this information in a format that it could easily publicly release. They aren’t going to make any special effort to make Linux on Mac easier, but they also aren’t actively blocking it.

▲

apatheticonion a day ago | parent [-]

They decided to leave the bootloader unlocked. I guess, in today's anti-consumer tech landscape, that's nice of them.

	▲	philistine a day ago \| parent [-]
		It's more complicated than that. The bootloader can maintain the chain of trust for macOS while allowing unsecured OSes next to it.