Signal devs don't intend to support Apple M1

The fact that client binaries are signed doesn't mean you can't use your own client. It means you can't make your own binaries and pretend they were from Signal.

You aren't suggesting that Signal share their code signing key are you?

It's opensource by license.

Nobody has to be "authorized" to do anything with code shared. That's not how the licenses work.

> FOSS is about power to the end users, and Signal is fighting hard against it.

"power" here means the ability to derive your own forks (see https://github.com/dennisameling/Signal-Desktop).

Being OSS doesn't mean they have to be fully transparent on their plans, nor does it mean they have to cave to abusive behavior in PRs, feature requests or forums.

I got the macbook air cheaply (basically for free) and I like the device. A passively cooled notebook with good power, display, HID. I have nothing against that and Apple built a decent product.

That said, for me this has little to do with the future of software and hardware innovation. In that regard it is a toy and is quickly delegated as such by other systems I use that tend to be more free and more powerful, just by the merit of giving me choice. Perhaps rougher around some edges than a stylized Apple product, sure. But anyway, this thread should not be about that.

But when I got the macbook, I was very aware that there will be hiccups in compatibility. I use non-native Blender and the performance is amazing considering that I use it with help of Rosetta on a passively cooled notebook. There might be a native implementation by now, but I would never presume to demand a project to accommodate my personal choice of processor architecture, even if someone already supplied a fix. Perhaps they just didn't have time to look at it or already had a solution under development and therefore closed a PR. I also think they don't owe any explanations. They probably close just as many PR for their projects without comment. To see it as an affront to the "developer community" is just a bit much.

Open source doesn't automatically mean community driven. Signal could have an entirely closed roadmap and plan, while still allowing you to see the source and fork it if you want something different. It's over the top to call that "open source in name only". It's real open source, you can do what you want with the source. The project roadmap is just not community driven.