It's an honest question. Even if someone (or a team) could somehow be paid for this work, by the time the results are usable, the hardware will be more or less functionally obsolete.
And that is on top of the fact that ARM64 on MacOS will always be a small slice of the gaming pie, and ARM64 on Linux games and GPU applications virtually nonexistent.
What do I miss?
So eventually the gap between hardware release and fairly complete driver support could close quite a lot.
Also, the Apple GPU has evolved from PowerVR roots dating back to the 1990s. It is fairly safe to assume that the next generation of Apple GPU will share enough with the current generation that in 3 years, supporting whatever new hardware exists will be incremental rather than transformative ground-up work.
This was already the case for M1 into M2.
Hundreds of GPU features the latter doesn't use in normal hw-accelerated rendering of webpages... except maybe in doing WebGL content (and even less much fewer and older features than what AAA games want)
Yes. Compute shaders and geometry shaders are big features. Vulkan, DX12 and Metal also brought a jump in performance at the API level by allowing developers to batch commands sent to the GPU.
Desktop environments can and do leverage those newer APIs to get marginally better battery life. Asahi will miss out on those benefits, but the performance will be insanely better than “no GPU at all”.
Additionally there's a lot of shared code between the different linux graphics drivers through Mesa, the linux userspace graphics driver framework.
https://youtu.be/Of93GBCEbug Shows some native games, but also Skyrim and Metro Last Light working on ARM.
but considering there is a mountain of linux development for people with the expertise to be done for more open platforms. This work pretty much only helps one of the richest companies and Apple shows very little inclination to help by providing documentation or support (they let an alternative OS boot seems to be the extent of it).
The XPS series might have caught up for a while, but until they flip over to ARM, Apple laptops simply blow anything else out of the water. What’s wrong with trying to run Linux on that?
Could Apple improve the documentation a lot? For sure! Bu on the other side, the ARM Macs are a very nice platform, so I can understand the desire to use it. There is no competition at the moment, so it would be wrong too, to not support Linux there.
It’s perfectly possible to build such chips with other designs and instruction sets, for example x86_64 or risc-v, in the same way it’s pretty common to build cheaper slower ARM processors. Plenty of folks at Intel and AMD are doing that right now.
Not in any way that has any relevance.
>Not as big of a problem as on x86, but still a fundamental limitation.
Huge understatement. Instructions being any size 1-16 (x86) vs being either 16bit or 32bit long (RISC-V).
As with everything else in RISC-V, the architects did the weighting, and found that the advantage in code size overwhelms the (negligible by design) added decoding cost, for anything but the tiniest of implementations (no on-die cache + no builtin ROM).
As it turns out, it would be difficult to even find a use for such a core, but in any event it is still possible to make one such very specialized chip, and simply not use the C extension.
Such a use would be deeply embedded, and the vendor would be in control of the full stack so there would be no concerns of compatibility with e.g. mainstream Linux distributions. They would still get ecosystem benefits; they'd be able to use the open source toolchains, as they support even naked RV32E with no extensions.
This does apply to x86 and m68k, as "variable" there means 1-16 byte, and dealing with that means bruteforcing decode at every possible starting point. Intel and AMD have both thus found 4-wide decode to be a practical limit.
It does not apply to RISC-V, where you get either 32bit or 2x 16bit. The added complexity of using the C extension is negligible, to the point where if a chip has any cache or rom in it, using C becomes a net benefit in area and power.
Therefore, ARMv8 AArch64 made a critical mistake in adopting a fixed 32bit opcode size. A mistake we can see in practice when looking at the L1 cache size that Apple M1 needed to compensate for poor code density.
L1 is never free. It is always *very* costly: Its size dictates area the cache takes, clocks the cache itself can achieve (which in turns caps the speed of the CPU), and power the cache draws.
Sure, there's Ascalon[0], 8-decode 10-issue, by Jim Keller's team at Tenstorrent. It isn't in the market yet, but is bound to be among the first RISC-V chips targeting very high performance.
Note that, at that size (8-decode implies lots of execution units, a relatively large design*), the negligible overhead of C extension is invisible. There's only gains to be had.
C extension decode overhead would only apply in the comically impractical scenario of a core that has neither L1 Cache nor any ROM in the chip. Otherwise, it is a net win.
And such a specialized chip would simply not implement C.
0. https://youtu.be/yHrdEcsr9V0?t=346
(*: 8-wide decode being small is just Jim Keller's idea of a joke)
Also it will be useable for at least some usecases, even if not AAA games, before the hardware is obselete.
> a basic OpenGL driver is doable by a single person. I’m optimistic that we’ll have native OpenGL 2.1 in Asahi Linux by the end of the year.
That should be enough to be very useful to a lot of users.
People do great stuff with computers and programming and I think this is a good example. Passion is what it's all about.
The "why bother" is missing the crucial point, that the most important use of the GPU driver for Asahi would be HW accelerated desktop (and driving external monitors, etc) - it's not like a GPU driver for M1 is useless if no AAA games aren't supported...
Because people want to. Who is anyone to be the arbiter of those desires, no matter the practical applications (which this has a ton of, as alluded to via the other repliers)?
But you are right -- modern desktops are using a GPU heavily. For worse or best(10-15 years ago everything worked without GPU help and compositors. Was not as fancy looking).
P.S. I like how HN works on mobile. And how lightweight it is. Made by real hacker wizards, of long lost arcane knowledge of the webcraft!
Because most of us looking into Asahi don't care for playing AAA games with it. We want Linux on our Mac laptop, with hw acceleration for the desktop and apps.
You just have to lower the settings and resolution to get that smooth performance - think base model last gen console/nintendo switch levels of visual fidelity rather than up to date gaming pc/current gen console levels of visual fidelity.
It's kinda fun squeezing performance out of woefully underpowered hardware - LowSpecGamer on youtube is a channel dedicated to this kind of stuff.
I think the parent's point is "what AAA games would run on the M1, even if they finish GPU support, given that we're talking about ARM Linux?"
[0] https://box86.org/2022/03/box86-box64-vs-qemu-vs-fex-vs-rose...
Again, why bother?
Why continue to choose user hostile hardware made by a manufacture who seeks to frustrate your precise desire to do this? Wouldn't it be much more logical to purchase from a manufacturer who doesn't care what you use on the hardware--or even better yet, actively supports you in getting the hardware to perform as well as possible with Linux? What is the point in continuing to chase after hardware which doesn't fully work in your chosen operating system with your preferred applications? Why pay full price for hardware that will never be fully supported and work to its full potential?
I had a Macbook Pro 8,1 I ordered specifically for the intel video because at the time Nvidia support was lacking and I got that model with the express purpose and idea that if OSX changed to where I no longer liked it or if the hardware was no longer supported by Apple I could just install Linux and keep going. I had nothing but nightmares trying to get Linux to work on that thing. Consistently things would be fine and then suddenly grub would randomly eat itself. The idea of buying hardware and installing an unsupported operating system seems like insanity to me after that experience.
I'm genuinely trying to understand why people would do this because it seems to make no sense. I doubt any of the people hitting the downvote will see this post in response but I'd really like to hear why anyone would do this. This is supposed to be a commenting and discussion board, I'd like some discussion. Thanks.
Reasons to do it: 1. Enthusiasts are having fun 2. They increase their skill in Linux driver development 3. This can generate patches usable by ARM linux in general, not only viable for Apple hardware.
If she manages to succeed, perhaps with help of others, then we have Linux desktop there. Linux gaming and 3D acceleration wasn't always a thing, and people were still using Linux.
But I agree that apple hardware would still be hostile, and not sure if it is worth it. VM can be used with same success. People who by new macs should be ready to be vendor locked.
But to extend this topic.
Many parts of x86 linux drivers are community developed. Either by individuals, or by companies as RedHat. Yes major hardware vendors, like Intel and AMD makes sure that chipset and CPU are supported, but many motherboard vendors and laptop ones don't give a damn. As far as I know Realtek gigabit ethernet chip was community driven driver.
And most printer drivers are not from vendors.
Now I am curious to search statistics, how much of drivers are made by vendors?
But generally, there is still a problem, that person decide to try linux, and their hardware is unsupported on x86. Laptops especially.
I tend to check linux compatibility first, even if I don't use Linux regularly(actually going to switch soon). I've used linux for a while on my DELL laptop, and experience was great. But my daily driver is windows desktop. Going to try it out. Hope my Wacom tablet would work in Linux, as from my research Wacom is best shot for L.
But people is doing it for free, and getting fun. So that's their choice.
You helped me see what was happening too, so thank you for that too.
I'm not for a second saying that if people want to hack away on the hardware to have fun, to scratch their own itch, etc etc they shouldn't be allowed to do so. They want to do it, they should have as much fun as they can while doing so. I wish them well. No on is served by petty administrator types demanding the whole world act as an offshoot of their corporate needs and abandon what is fun for them to work on the stuff that any one individual needs. Linux grows like it does because so many people are having fun with it and I'd never want to stop that.
The people I don't understand are the ones who buy Apple hardware with the intention of running Linux. They're the ones taking the gamble and buying something which was never intended to work under Linux from a vendor who is actively hostile to them doing so. At these prices, why gamble? Why fight? Do you want a toy for geek cred or are you buying hardware to use?
It's different if they're planning to develop on the hardware alongside the hackers getting Linux to run or are trying to target their code on the ARM type that Apple is using with hopes of future portability. That makes sense and is their business, whether for work or for pleasure. I just don't understand why the average Linux user would want to do this.
Sure Apple's ARM processor is pretty much leading the pack when it comes to ARM hardware set up for daily use. The hardware is very cool and I dearly hope that someone will release something intended for Linux that can compete and give them a run for their money. I just don't think it's a gamble worth pursuing if your goal is to simply use the hardware as opposed to developing or hacking on it.
Thanks again for your response, it helped me understand how I was coming off and I apologize to everyone for the misunderstanding my wording caused.
I guess having another option won't hurt, and would increase applications adoption.
To be honest: supporting such uniform hardware as Apple's is way easier than supporting bunch of different vendors. So this is doable, if won't be one-man project.
I wonder the same thing, but from an ideological perspective.
Why should the free software community promote Apple hardware by making it more accessible to OSS enthusiasts, when Apple only cares about OSS when it directly benefits them? Apple makes great hardware, but they're actively hostile to everything free software stands for. If Apple cared about this user base, they would work on this themselves.
That said, from a technical standpoint, this is nothing short of impressive, so kudos to the team. I can't even imagine the dedication and patience required to work on this project.
Why should you be forced to choose between non-free software and subpar hardware?
Why not liberate the hardware?
I think there are plenty of "good enough" laptops that run Linux just fine, so I'd rather use those than have the relatively "best" hardware, but have to fight it to run the software I want, deal with any incompatibilities, and fear that it might break at any point. Standard Linux on supported hardware has plenty of issues; I can't imagine what the experience is like on completely opaque hardware, as much progress as the Asahi team has made. It's like a reverse Hackintosh project, which has always been a painful experience.
Isn't there anyone inside Apple who wants to have Linux?
Isn't there anyone inside Apple who wants to help?
At this point, trying to expand the user base through sheer hardware improvement or trying to include fringe groups (windows dual boot users, linux user) probably has diminishing returns.
In contrast, service revenue, app revenue and accessories like air pods, the Apple Watch have a much better ROI.
What I'm coming at: they have little incentive to work hard to expand the user base, and a better ROI on expanding revenue from users of their software platform. So I'm not holding my breath on Apple actively helping for windows or linux support anytime soon.
They also may be reluctant to release it because of fear of litigation. They may do something that’s patented, similar to a patent, or deemed patented by someone else, and releasing documentation makes it easier for others to find such cases.
Also, in the end, there’s dollars. Even the simplest process to release documentation costs money (and theirs wouldn’t be the simplest for the reasons mentioned above). They may think there’s not enough money or reputation gain in it for them to do this (and for reputation gain, they would have to keep doing it)
> thanks to the tremendous shared code in Mesa, a basic OpenGL driver is doable by a single person. I’m optimistic that we’ll have native OpenGL 2.1 in Asahi Linux by the end of the year.
It's likely that even a bare-bones OpenGL driver will probably run better than llvmpipe, which is especially important in a laptop context due to the resulting power use improvements.
I do this on my workstation and can run anything, it's quite nice:
$ lscpu | grep Architecture
Architecture: x86_64
$ GOARCH=arm64 go build main.go
$ file ./main
./main: ELF 64-bit LSB executable, ARM aarch64, version 1 (SYSV), statically linked, ...
$ ./main
Hello, world.