docs VS linux

marcan of the Asahi Linux project got into a discussion on reddit about this, and says that when it comes to hardware, you just can’t know.

> I can't prove the absence of a silicon backdoor on any machine, but I can say that given everything we know about AS systems (and we know quite a bit), there is no known place a significant backdoor could hide that could completely compromise my system. And there are several such places on pretty much every x86 system

(Long) thread starts here, show hidden comments for the full discussion https://old.reddit.com/r/AsahiLinux/comments/13voeey/what_is...

I highly recommend reading this if you’re interested https://github.com/AsahiLinux/docs/wiki/Introduction-to-Appl...

Depends on the box. In general if there is a hardwired HDMI port it works, if it's an alt mode it doesn't yet. The feature pages give detail by hardware, heres a direct link to the M2 page https://github.com/AsahiLinux/docs/wiki/M2-Series-Feature-Su...

https://github.com/AsahiLinux/docs/wiki/M1-Series-Feature-Su...

According to this page it should work on M1 MBP, but there is also a note about a specific patch released next week.

I'm just refuting that OP's dot update problem on Sonoma was caused by the refresh rate bug. In all likelihood OP doesn't have a weird Sonoma/Ventura dual boot situation going on (or Ashai Linux for that matter, who wrote a great article about this). In all my testing (and with a large enterprise sample size) we had zero reports of the refresh bug impacting an Apple Silicon Mac running just Sonoma itself.

> They don't support variations of software at all. They support the hardware. [...] Asahi does not need to support applications at all.

From their FAQ page[1]:

> We will eventually release a remix of Arch Linux ARM, packaged for installation by end-users, as a distribution of the same name. The majority of the work resides in hardware support, drivers, and tools, and it will be upstreamed to the relevant projects. The distribution will be a convenient package for easy installation by end-users and give them access to bleeding-edge versions of the software we develop.

As distro maintainers, it is their job to make sure the applications they package work on the hardware they support. This includes submitting patches upstream when that is not the case, as application maintainers likely wouldn't want to support such a niche environment directly. So, yes, they rely on volunteers to fix issues, but they will likely have to support many applications themselves.

There is still a lot of broken software, as this list[2] is surely not exhaustive.

> Same deal for any other hardware manufacturer. [...] Really not much different to other hardware manufacturers since Linux started.

No, it's very different. First of all, the amount of Linux hackers who volunteered to reverse engineer the wide variety of hardware was orders of magnitude larger than the Asahi team. Even if they limit the amount of devices they support, modern computers are far more complex than in the early days of Linux. Regardless of how talented the Asahi team is, maintaining all the hardware of a modern computer is a sisyphean task for a project run by volunteers.

Secondly, hardware manufacturers could see the benefit of getting their hardware to run in Linux, and many eventually took over support from volunteers. Apple has shown no interest in doing so, and has historically been hostile to open source.

> Asahi devs have made it clear that Apple has chosen to avoid blocking installation of other operating systems.

The fact they allow installation of other operating systems today, doesn't mean that this decision couldn't change in the future. Services are a large part of their business, and allowing a group of hackers to use their hardware without being part of their software ecosystem may seem like a non-issue today, but if this group grows larger assuming projects like Asahi are successful, this might become a considerable loss of income which wouldn't be in their best interest.

> Apple has no issue with it.

Can you point me to an official ackgnowledgment of Asahi Linux by Apple? Or any indication that leaving this door open was a sign of good will, instead of a lack of interest in closing it? What makes you think they wouldn't eventually lock down Macbooks in the same way they do iPhones and iPads?

> ARM is a stable well supported platform for Linux

It's really not. A lot of software works, but when it doesn't, the user is SOL. As you can see on their Broken Software page[2], the major issue is precisely with AArch64 support. This should improve eventually, and Asahi is certainly a torchbearer in this scenario, but today it's yet another hurdle of using Apple hardware.

[1]: https://asahilinux.org/about/#is-this-a-linux-distribution

[2]: https://github.com/AsahiLinux/docs/wiki/Broken-Software

More information about the macOS Sonoma ProMotion bug here.

Here’s the actual issue for anyone that cares, fully documented : https://github.com/AsahiLinux/docs/wiki/macOS-Sonoma-Boot-Failures

FFS predates FreeBSD and is in some capacity supported by all 3 major BSDs. I'm fairly confident that Linux actually supports it through the ufs driver ( https://github.com/torvalds/linux/tree/master/fs/ufs ); whether the use of different names in different places makes it better or worse is an exercise for the reader.

These are a bit easier to see what's going on:

https://github.com/torvalds/linux/commit/d5cf50dafc9dd5faa1e...

https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/d5cf50dafc9dd5faa1e61...

Unfortunately Github doesn't have a way to render symbols for whitespace, but you can tell by selecting the spaces that the previous version had leading tabs. Linus changed it so that the tokens `default` and the number e.g. `12` are also separated by a tab. This is tricky, because the token "default" is seven characters, it will always give this added tab a width of 1 char which makes it always layout the same as if it were a space no matter if you use tab widths of 1, 2, 4, or 8.

There was also a Gentoo effort to run atop FreeBSD[0]. The challenge of course is that afaik none of the BSD kernel ABIs are considered stable. The stable interface is the BSD libc. That said, with binfmt_misc, I don't see a reason you couldn't just run (at least some) FreeBSD binaries on Linux with a thin syscall translation layer (rather something like qemu-system) and then your layer hooked via binfmt_misc. I'm not aware of anyone who has done this for FreeBSD, but prior efforts existed as alternate binfmts for SysVr4/5 ELF binaries[2]. Either way would take some elbow grease, but you *might* even be able just reuse binfmt_elf and just have a new interpreter for FreeBSD elf.

[0] https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Gentoo_FreeBSD

[1] https://docs.kernel.org/admin-guide/binfmt-misc.html

[2] https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/fs/binfmt_elf....

> The original less-than check was deemed incorrect

It was only deemed incorrect because of an information leak. Not because it's a valid use-case for user space to copy smaller portions of *hwrpb into user space. https://github.com/torvalds/linux/commit/21c5977a836e399fc71...

Correct. And the combined work needs to carry the MIT license text and copyright attributions for the MIT software authors. With binary distribution it must also be overt, not hidden in some source code drop, but directly accompanying the binary.

Many people who talk about relicensing never credit the MIT developers or distribute the MIT license text. "Because it's GPL now."

I don't think that you believe that, but many developers do.

Some don't see the need for source code scans for Open Source compliance, because the license.txt says GPL, so it's GPL. Prime example is the Linux kernel. There is code under different licenses in there, but people don't even read https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/COPYING till the end ("In addition, other licenses may also apply.") and conclude it's simply GPL 2 and nothing else.

Also be aware that sublicensing is not the same as relicensing.

> Does he have something against it?

He notoriously hates GNU Emacs, yes.

https://marc.info/?m=122955159617722

https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/Documentation/...